News & Analysis as of September 26, 2024

Antitrust Litigation

+ Follow

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary with only a limited number of cases granted review each term. The Court is comprised of one chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to hold lifetime positions. less -

Turning the Tables: Kroger Sues the FTC

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on 8/30/2024

In February of this year, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought an administrative complaint to block Kroger Company’s $24.6 billion merger with Albertsons Companies, Inc., citing antitrust concerns. On August 19, 2024,...more

Clarity May Be Around the Corner for Antitrust Scrutiny of Reverse Payment Settlements

Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP on 12/7/2023

In the ten years since the Supreme Court ruled in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis that reverse payment settlements—or settlements where a patent holder pays an accused patent infringer cash or other consideration to end...more

D.C. Circuit Dismisses FTC Antitrust Suit: Exclusive Pharma Patent Licenses Remain Permissible Under The Patent Act

Haug Partners LLP on 9/22/2023

On Friday, August 25, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit affirmed dismissal of an antitrust action brought by the Federal Trade Commission regarding Endo Pharmaceuticals’s grant of an...more

EDVA Judge Denies Motion to Transfer Antitrust Action Against Google to the SDNY

Troutman Pepper on 6/15/2023

In perhaps the first case addressing transfer of a federal antitrust action to an MDL court, Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Alexandria Division of the EDVA recently denied a motion to transfer an antitrust action against Google...more

Supreme Court Determines That Constitutionality of FTC’s Administrative Review Process Can Be Challenged in Federal District Court

Epstein Becker & Green on 5/4/2023

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has the distinct advantage of being able to bring enforcement actions before its own administrative tribunals....more

Third Circuit Sharply Limits FTC Authority to Obtain Monetary Relief as Supreme Court Prepares to Weigh In

Wiley Rein LLP on 10/6/2020

Last week, in FTC v. AbbVie et al., the Third Circuit joined the Seventh Circuit in holding that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was not authorized to seek disgorgement as a remedy under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act –...more

Reverse Payment Patent Settlements in the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Year in Review

A&O Shearman on 4/27/2018

This past year has seen renewed challenges to reverse payment settlement agreements in the pharmaceutical industry. Since the Supreme Court’s Actavis decision in mid-2013, potentially anti-competitive agreements are...more

The Effects of the Actavis Decision on Reverse Payment Settlement Agreements in ANDA cases -- Four Years After

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP on 7/12/2017

In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its decision in FTC v. Actavis, finding that although so-called reverse payment settlement agreements were not per se antitrust violations in cases brought against generic drug makers...more

Supreme Court to Consider Whether Allegations of Adherence to a Business Association’s Rules Can Trigger Antitrust Liability

Miles & Stockbridge P.C. on 9/16/2016

Can participation in a business or trade association and allegiance to its rules trigger antitrust liability for association members under the Sherman Act? Next term, the Supreme Court will hear Osborn v. Visa Inc., the...more

Four Takeaways from the ABA Antitrust Section's 2016 Spring Meeting

Proskauer Rose LLP on 4/20/2016

Antitrust practitioners, enforcers and industry professionals came together in Washington, D.C. for the 64th installment of the ABA Section of Antitrust Law's annual Spring Meeting. The Spring Meeting provides a look at the...more

ANDA Update - October 2015

McDermott Will & Emery on 10/30/2015

Federal Circuit Interprets Statutory Requirements for Biosimilar Regulatory Pathway - Amgen Inc., v. Sandoz Inc., (Fed. Cir. July 21, 2015): In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal...more

Regulatory Capture Vitiates State Action Immunity

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on 6/26/2015

The Supreme Court has ruled that when an oversight mechanism created by a State —here a State Board — is under the control of those it was supposed to be regulating (sometimes referred to by economists as “regulatory...more

Antitrust & Competition Newsletter - April 2015

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP on 5/1/2015

U.S. Supreme Court Holds That State Action Immunity Does Not Apply to State Boards If the Board Is Controlled by Active Market Participants - On Feb. 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in a 6-3 decision, that a state...more

Open Season on Provider-controlled Licensing Boards

Baker Donelson on 4/13/2015

In a closely followed decision with significant consequences for state licensing boards and their members, the Supreme Court in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, 135 S. Ct. 1101...more

Antitrust “State Action” Exemption: North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP on 3/27/2015

On February 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, holding that a regulatory board made up of market participants is exempt from...more

United States Supreme Court Rules that N.C. Dental Board Is Not Entitled to State Action Immunity from Antitrust Liability

King & Spalding on 3/18/2015

In North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. F.T.C., No. 13-534 (2015), the United States Supreme Court ruled last week that the North Carolina Dental Board, which is comprised mainly of practicing dentists, was not...more

No State Action Antitrust Immunity for North Carolina Dental Board: Implications for the Health Care Sector

Epstein Becker & Green on 3/18/2015

On February 25, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the North Carolina Dental Board (“Board”) was not insulated from federal antitrust liability under the so-called “state action” doctrine when it engaged...more

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

Holland & Knight LLP on 3/4/2015

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

McGuireWoods LLP on 3/3/2015

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...

McDermott Will & Emery on 3/3/2015

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...

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP on 3/3/2015

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

No Active State Supervision, No Antitrust Immunity for North Carolina State Dental Board

Mintz on 2/27/2015

On February 25, 2015, in a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court upheld the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) decision finding that the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners (Board), although a state...more

Supreme Court Finds that Regulatory Boards Composed of “Active Market Participants” are Subject to Antitrust Laws if Not Actively...

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP on 2/27/2015

Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC, finding that North Carolina’s state board of dental examiners was subject to antitrust scrutiny under the Sherman Act...more

Supreme Court Reviews Agency Comprised of Dental Professionals in State Action Case: Health Care Antitrust Cases to Watch in 2015

Maynard Nexsen on 1/6/2015

Federal and state courts are expected to rule on several nationally watched antitrust health care cases during the first half of 2015. As we enter into the first week of the New Year, Nexsen Pruet associate Rachel...more

FTC Attacks Toothless Regulation of Dentists

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on 10/15/2014

Yesterday the United States Supreme Court heard argument in a case of national importance to health professions and the state boards that regulate them. The case, North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC, addresses...more

43 Results

View per page

Page: of 2

Supreme Court of the United States › Federal Trade Commission (FTC) › Antitrust Litigation

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"