State AGs File NIL Antitrust Lawsuits — Highway to NIL Podcast
Drafting Consumer Breach Notices — From a Litigation Perspective - Unauthorized Access Podcast
Antitrust Conversations: Antitrust Litigation
JONES DAY PRESENTS®: Cryptocurrency and Antitrust Litigation
JONES DAY TALKS®: Private Antitrust Litigation in Spain
JONES DAY TALKS®: Takeaways from a Landmark Cryptocurrency Antitrust Case
JONES DAY TALKS®: Private Antitrust Litigation in France
JONES DAY TALKS®: Private Antitrust Litigation in Italy
JONES DAY TALKS®: Private Antitrust Litigation in the Netherlands
JONES DAY TALKS®: Private Antitrust Litigation in Germany
JONES DAY TALKS®: Private Antitrust Litigation in Europe: The Big Picture
Litigating During COVID: What You Need to Know
Nota Bene Episode 68: The Current Antitrust Enforcement Climate in the United States with Capitol Forum Senior Editor Nate Soderstrom
International Litigation and Transactions in the Face of GDPR – A Panel Preview
Jones Day Talks: Game Over? Alston and the Future of Pay-for-Play in College Sports
Employment Law This Week: Antitrust Guidance for HR, EEOC Strategic Enforcement Plan, New I-9 Form, Wage Statement Challenge
Health Care Antitrust & the Supreme Court – Interview with Bruce Sokler, Member, Mintz Levin
Bill on Bankruptcy: Appeals Court Changes the Law on Fraud
On June 30, 2023, a jury in the Northern District of California found Gilead and Teva not liable in a trial accusing the companies of engaging in an illegal reverse payment to delay generic versions of two HIV drugs, Truvada...more
Last month, Judge Manish Shah of the United States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois dismissed an antitrust complaint brought by indirect purchasers of AbbVie’s blockbuster rheumatoid arthritis drug,...more
The US District Court for the Northern District of California certified classes of direct purchasers and end-payers in a pay-for-delay multidistrict litigation involving Lidoderm. In re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation, Case No....more
The Third Circuit recently vacated class certification, granted by the Eastern District of Pennsylvania after nearly a decade of litigation, in an antitrust case alleging that a pharmaceutical company entered into agreements...more
On August 8, the District of Connecticut issued a noteworthy ruling on how to approach defining the relevant market definition in a pay-for-delay suit. In In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation, 3:14-md-02516 (D. Conn.), three...more
Portions of a reverse payment suit against Endo Pharmaceuticals and others were recently dismissed by Judge William H. Orrick of the Northern District of California. The case was brought by plaintiffs who allege that a...more
As we reported earlier, the jury in In re: Nexium found that AstraZeneca had violated the antitrust laws by acting to keep generics off the market but that no generic would have been introduced earlier in the market even...more
As reported previously, the first post-Actavis jury verdict in a “reverse payment” antitrust case handed a win to the defendants. Now, plaintiffs in In re: Nexium (Esomeprazole) Antitrust Litigation have moved for a new...more
After six weeks of trial and two days of deliberation, the jury has returned its verdict in favor of the defendants in In re: Nexium. This trial began as a challenge to the allegedly anticompetitive effects of the settlements...more
In this Issue: - New Developments - U.S. Supreme Court Will Decide Whether Patent Agreements That Postpone the Sale of Generic Drugs Violate Antitrust Laws - Direct Purchasers Have Standing to Bring Antitrust...more
A divided Supreme Court recently held in an opinion by Justice Breyer that “reverse payment” or “pay for delay” agreements between patent holders and potential competitors are not immune from scrutiny under antitrust laws....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