State AGs File NIL Antitrust Lawsuits — Highway to NIL Podcast
Fierce Competition Podcast | Private Equity Under the Antitrust Microscope
JONES DAY TALKS® - Charting the Course: Antitrust's Past, Present, and Future in Labor Markets
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: A Close Look at the Impact of Antitrust Laws on the Consumer Financial Services Industry
Antitrust Conversations: Antitrust Litigation
JONES DAY PRESENTS®: Cryptocurrency and Antitrust Litigation
JONES DAY TALKS®: Takeaways from a Landmark Cryptocurrency Antitrust Case
JONES DAY TALKS®: Private Antitrust Litigation in Europe: The Big Picture
Podcast: IP(DC): 5G for the C-Suite: Patent Hold-Up or Hold-Out?
U.S. International Trade Commission
Jones Day Talks: Game Over? Alston and the Future of Pay-for-Play in College Sports
Jones Day Presents: Antitrust, Collusion, and Blockchains
III-42-The New Overtime Rule and Antitrust Issues With Your Non-Competes
Instapundit: America's IP Laws Need to be "Pruned Back"
I. Introduction - No pharmaceutical antitrust decision has had more impact than the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, a decision which officially defined the term “reverse payment...more
For nearly a decade, the Supreme Court’s FTC v. Actavis decision has guided pharmaceutical litigators and advisors exploring the antitrust risks inherent in settling pharmaceutical patent lawsuits, especially when such...more
A new California law, Preserving Access to Affordable Drugs, AB-824 (the Act), which is aimed at curbing reverse-payment patent settlements, took effect on January 1. The Act codifies a presumption that any transfer of value...more
On October 7, 2019, California became the first state to enact legislation—Assembly Bill 824 ("AB 824")—rendering certain pharmaceutical patent litigation settlement agreements presumptively anticompetitive. This alert...more
Last Wednesday, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals partially vacated the judgment of the district court in In re Actos End-Payor Antitrust Litigation. In doing so, the Second Circuit allowed only plaintiffs’ claims that...more
It has been over three years since the Supreme Court’s Actavis decision. Since then, numerous putative class actions alleging harm to competition as a result of “reverse-payment” settlements have flooded the courts. The...more
To prevail in a product-hopping case, a plaintiff must be prepared to establish both monopoly power and anticompetitive effects. On September 28, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit...more
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
Addressing for the first time whether reverse settlement agreements involving non-cash consideration merit antitrust scrutiny, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the district court, applying the...more
Antitrust challenges to so-called “pay-for-delay” settlements in drug patent suits are allowed under the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc....more
On June 17, 2013, the United States Supreme Court announced a rule that blurs the lines between antitrust and patent law in the context of Hatch-Waxman litigation....more
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. that so-called “reverse payment” settlement agreements should be analyzed under a rule-of-reason analysis under which the court assesses any...more
The U.S. Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated opinion today in FTC v. Actavis, Inc., ruling that so-called “reverse payment” patent settlements between innovator and generic pharmaceutical manufacturers that are...more
Par PharmaceuticalPar/Paddock, one of the generic drug company defendants in FTC v. Actavis Inc. et al. (the "reverse payment" ANDA settlement case now before the Supreme Court) filed its reponsive brief last week. In it,...more