News & Analysis as of

Can Reverse Payments In Patent Settlements Constitute Criminal Cartel Conduct?

It is a well-established and universally accepted principle of competition law that a payment by one competitor to another competitor not to enter a market is anticompetitive, and in Australia since 2010 a criminal offence....more

FTC v. Actavis Decision Offers Guidance to Drug Manufacturers

June 18, 2013 – The Supreme Court handed down a 5-3 decision yesterday in FTC v. Actavis, Inc., holding pay-for-delay agreements are subject to antitrust review, but are not presumptively unlawful. The decision was authored...more

Antitrust and Competition Newsletter - February 2013

In This Issue: - A Modern Look at the Nine ‘No-Nos’ of Patent Licensing Under U.S. Antitrust Law: The First Four ‘No-Nos’ - Supreme Court Grants Cert. in Watson Reverse Payment Settlement Case - 7th Circuit...more

"New Year Will See More Policing of Patent Conduct by US and EU Competition Agencies"

If recent events are any indication, U.S. and European antitrust agencies will remain focused this year on the intersection of intellectual property and competition law. In particular, the agencies have concluded that under...more

How Do You Solve a Problem Like PAEs?

Policy makers in Washington, DC have been hearing about the problems created by patent assertion entities – PAEs or, to some, “patent trolls” – from a number of quarters over the past few years. PAEs are generally entities...more

FTC-Google Consent Decree Provides Important Lessons Regarding Standards-Essential Patents

On January 3, 2013, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) entered into a Consent Decree with Google Inc. (“Google”) and its wholly owned subsidiary Motorola Mobility LLC (“Motorola”). The decree settles allegations that Google...more

6 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 1