Restraint of Trade

News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court Limits Protectionism by State Healthcare Licensing Boards - Boards Comprised of Active Medical Providers Are Not...

The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in N.C. State Bd. of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 13-534, 2015 WL 773331 (S.Ct. February 25, 2015) makes clear that the anticompetitive actions of state...more

Supreme Court Denies Antitrust Shield for NC Dental Board

On Wednesday, February 25, 2015, the Supreme Court released a 6-3 decision in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, a case with potentially broad implications for regulation by dental and...more

Supreme Court: State Agencies Controlled by Active Market Participants Must Have Active State Supervision to Qualify for Antitrust...

In a 6–3 decision issued February 25, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States held in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission that if active market participants control an entity—even a...more

U.S. Supreme Court Holds That to Invoke Antitrust Immunity, State Agencies Controlled by Market Participants Must Prove Active...

On Feb. 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 6-3 decision that a state board with a controlling number of decision-makers who are active market participants in the occupation the board regulates does not enjoy state...more

Supreme Court Strikes Down State Professional Boards’ Antitrust Immunity

In a ruling with significant implications for state professional licensing boards and their members, on February 25, 2015, the United States Supreme Court found that practitioner-controlled state boards do not have inherent...more

Federal Court Finds Amex’s “Anti-Steering” Merchant Rules Anticompetitive

After a seven-week bench trial in an enforcement action by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and 17 state attorneys general, U.S. District Judge Garaufis (Eastern District of New York) held that American Express Co.’s...more

Supreme Court Holds State Regulatory Board Not Immune From Antitrust Laws

On February 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners (“Dental Board”) is not shielded from federal antitrust law under the doctrine of state-action antitrust...more

Supreme Court Update: North Carolina Board Of Dental Examiners V. Federal Trade Commission (13-534), Kansas V. Nebraska (126,...

The robed returned to action with this week with decisions in three cases, North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission (13-534), on whether state licensing boards enjoy immunity from antitrust laws...more

US Supreme Court: state agencies must be "actively supervised" to enjoy antitrust immunity – 5 tips

Do you sit on a state board or are you regulated by one? If so, the United States Supreme Court decided a case last Wednesday that directly affects you. Until recently, many assumed that a state agency or board enjoyed...more

Three Key Things To Remember About Restraint Of Trade Clauses

Historically courts have been reluctant to enforce restraint of trade clauses on the basis that employees are entitled to use the skill, experience, and know-how acquired during previous employment in legitimate competition...more

New DDTC Re-export Requirement – What You Need to Know

As of October 1, the State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) has added an additional requirement for foreign parties looking to re-export or re-transfer items that are under their jurisdiction by...more

The law regarding legal relations within Crimean peninsula has come into effect

On 27 April, the Law of Ukraine "On Ensuring the Citizens' Rights and Freedoms on the Temporarily Occupied Territory of Ukraine" came into effect. The Law establishes the specifics of regulation of legal relations within the...more

Fourth Circuit Holds State Agencies Operated by Market Participants Are Private Actors for State Action Purposes

On May 31, 2013, the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion upholding the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) determination that the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners (Board) illegally expelled non-dentists from the teeth...more

Non-Compete Agreements Must Be Narrowly Drafted

Erin K. Dailey and Diana Tate Vermeire recently moved for and won dismissal in a case seeking to enforce an overbroad non-compete agreement that constituted an illegal restraint on trade. As the case illustrates, non-compete...more

The Continuing Saga of Reverse Payment Patent Litigation

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

15 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 1