#WorkforceWednesday®: After the Block - What’s Next for Employers and Non-Competes? - Spilling Secrets Podcast - Employment Law This Week®
FTC Challenges H&R Block's Marketing and Data Practices
Investigation Tag Team: The FTC and the State of Arizona — Moving the Metal: The Auto Finance Podcast
4 Key Takeaways | Trade Secret Update 2024 Legal Developments and Trends
Employment Law Now VIII-150 - The FTC Noncompete Rule is Dead: What Now?
Navigating Emerging Privacy Issues in Financial Services — The Consumer Finance Podcast
Navigating the Labyrinth of Private Equity Investments in Health Care – Diagnosing Health Care
California Employment News: Court Ruling Halts FTC’s Non-Compete Ban – Implications for Employers
(Podcast) California Employment News: Court Ruling Halts FTC’s Non-Compete Ban – Implications for Employers
#WorkforceWednesday®: What the FTC Non-Compete Ban Block Means for Employers - Employment Law This Week®
FTC CFPB Enforcement Report — Moving the Metal: The Auto Finance Podcast
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - Employment Law Edition: The Latest on Non-Competes and Independent Contractors
Balch’s Decision Dive: Texas Trial Court Struck Down the FTC’s Noncompete Rule
Employment Law Now VIII-146 - Latest Update on FTC Non-Compete Ban Plus 3 Summer Reminders for Employers
Urgent Action on Restrictive Covenants: Employers Must Prepare for FTC Rules
California Employment News: Understanding the FTC Non-Compete Ban Key Insights for Employers
California Employment News: Understanding the FTC Non-Compete Ban Key Insights for Employers (Podcast)
#WorkforceWednesday: What Is the Future of Non-Compete Agreements for Employers? - Spilling Secrets Podcast
The FTC and Connecticut Join Forces for Action Against Nissan Dealer
#WorkforceWednesday: Can FTC’s Non-Compete Ban Survive Without Chevron Deference? - Spilling Secrets Podcast
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
Patent settlement agreements were traditionally deemed outside the purview of antitrust scrutiny unless the patent holder’s conduct fell outside the legitimate scope of the patent’s exclusionary power. This all changed when...more
Actions to Advance Infant and Early Childhood Mental Health - Editor's Note: Children's earliest experiences—both positive and negative—impact their brain formation and in turn their social and emotional, physical,...more
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an antitrust complaint this week against Endo Pharmaceuticals and several generic companies, alleging that these companies entered into anticompetitive “reverse payment” settlements of...more
In the first decision by a federal appeals court interpreting the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in FTC v. Actavis, the Third Circuit recently held in King Drug Co. of Florence v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. that so-called...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
In FTC v. Actavis, the Supreme Court held that “reverse payment” pharma patent settlements within the scope of the patent may (or may not) violate the Sherman Act.1 The majority opinion in Actavis explained that Hatch-Waxman...more
On June 17, 2013, in FTC v. Actavis, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs may bring antitrust suits against so-called “reverse payment” or “pay-for-delay” settlements, under which pioneer and generic...more
In this Issue: - Focus On The Federal Trade Commission - Supreme Court Decision in FTC v. Actavis Provides Guidance on Pay-for-Delay - DOJ Prevails on Liability in eBooks Antitrust Case in the Southern District...more
On June 17, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) antitrust challenge to a reverse payment settlement agreement between drug manufacturers, otherwise known as a “pay-for-delay”...more
For over a decade, the antitrust enforcers at the Federal Trade Commission have challenged the type of patent settlement where a brand-name drug manufacturer pays a prospective generic manufacturer to settle patent...more
By rejecting the “scope of the patent” test and holding that reverse payment patent settlements “can sometimes violate the antitrust laws,” the Supreme Court of the United States subjects such settlements to greater antitrust...more
In Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., the Supreme Court held that reverse payment (“pay-for-delay”) settlement agreements made in the context of settling Hatch-Waxman ANDA litigation should be evaluated for antitrust...more
This week, the Supreme Court announced that “reverse payment” settlements of patent litigation between branded and generic pharmaceutical companies are, when challenged in a subsequent antitrust case, to be judged under the...more
On June 17, 2013, after years of litigation in the lower courts, the United States Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in FTC v. Actavis. The 5-3 decision, however, did not have a clear winner, and the case was...more
In the most significant patent antitrust decision in decades, Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., No. 12-416, 2013 WL 2922122 (June 17, 2013), the Supreme Court has held, by a 5-3 vote with Justice Alito recused, that...more
SUMMARY OF DECISION - In FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 570 U.S. ____ (Slip Op. June 17, 2013), the Supreme Court addressed for the first time the underlying antitrust merits of the Federal Trade Commission’s long-running...more
The Supreme Court ruled 5-3 on June 17, 2013 in favor of the Federal Trade Commission in FTC v. Actavis. Writing for the majority that included Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan, Justice Breyer’s opinion...more
In Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., No. 12-416, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4545 (U.S. June 17, 2013), the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit decision in FTC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 677 F.3d 1298 (2012),...more
The Supreme Court has held that the antitrust laws may forbid patent settlements that delay the market entry of generic drugs in return for large payments from manufacturers of competing branded drugs....more
On March 25, 2012, the Supreme Court heard oral argument on the legality of “reverse payment” or “pay for delay” agreements between brand-name and generic drug manufacturers....more
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., will almost certainly have major implications for the viability of Federal Trade Commission and private suits alleging that pay-for-delay settlements...more