The Supreme Court today decided FTC v. Actavis, Inc. and held, in a 5-3 decision authored by Justice Breyer, that so-called reverse-payment patent settlements are subject to full antitrust Rule of Reason analysis…more
This is the second of two posts on California below-cost pricing law.
5. What does it mean to sell below “cost?”
Unlike federal law, California law expressly defines the concept of below-cost sales (although…more
As of 2012 (at least according to Wikipedia), California was the 12th largest economy in the world. Most national and international firms do at least some business in the Golden State. Like other states, California has laws…more
The White House today issued a fact sheet on high-tech patent issues, recommending seven legislative actions and taking five executive actions. According to the White House’s statement, innovators continue to face challenges…more
I think the award for most creative market definition (at least for 2013) has to go to the plaintiff in Between the Lines Productions, LLC v. Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., Case No. 13-cv-3584 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2013). There,…more
The latest issue of Antitrust magazine features several articles on Most Favored Nations (“MFN”) clauses, which prompted me to riff a little bit about them.
An MFN is in principle a fairly simple device. It usually…more
In a brief, unanimous opinion written by Justice Kagan, the Supreme Court yesterday agreed with Monsanto that the patent exhaustion doctrine does not enable farmers to replant and reproduce patented seeds without the patentee’s…more
In Kaewsawang v. Sara Lee Fresh, Inc., Case No. BC360109 (Cal. Los Angeles Superior Ct. May 6, 2013), the trial court dismissed a challenge to Sara Lee’s pricing practices brought under California’s state antitrust law, the…more
It has long been the case that Sherman Act Section 1 Rule of Reason claims as well as Section 2 claims require proof of harm to competition. But the courts, particularly in the Ninth Circuit, have been tightening up on the…more
In Stewart v. Gogo, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51895 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2013) (Chen, J.), a putative class of airline passengers challenged Gogo’s long-term exclusive contracts to provide Internet access connectivity to…more
Within the past two weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided two important cases relevant to antitrust.
First, on March 27, in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, No. 11-864, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a U.S. district court…more
In LifeScan, Inc. v. Shasta Technologies, LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38677 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2013), Judge Davila granted plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction to address claims of patent infringement, and addressed…more
From today’s New York Times:
Law school applications are headed for a 30-year low, reflecting increased concern over soaring tuition, crushing student debt and diminishing prospects of lucrative employment upon…more
A recent interesting case suggests that “anti-patent trolls” may in theory face antitrust liability. In Cascades Computer Innovation LLC v. RPX Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10526 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2013), Judge Yvonne Gonzalez…more
In FTC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Supreme Court No. 12-416), the FTC unsurprisingly filed a merits brief this month again arguing that pay-for-delay (or “reverse payment”) patent settlements are presumptively…more
