News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court of the United States › Monopolization

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... more +
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 -
Troutman Pepper

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

Troutman Pepper on

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

Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC

The Role of Patents in Prescription Drugs

Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC on

Americans spend on average about $1,300 per person per year on prescription drugs, which represents only about 13.3% of the total paid-for drugs in the US. Private insurers, Medicare, and Medicaid pay another 81.8%. ...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Nota Bene Episode 98: The U.S. Supreme Court’s Mark on U.S. Antitrust Law for 2020 with Thomas Dillickrath and Bevin Newman

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP on

The United States Supreme Court infrequently hears antitrust cases but when it decides to hear a case, the Court has the power to shape the framework of American antitrust laws. In this episode, we’re examining the...more

WilmerHale

China’s Supreme People’s Court Rules RPM Is Illegal Per Se

WilmerHale on

In a ruling issued on December 18, 2018 but not published until June 24, 2019, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) ruled in favor of the Hainan Provincial Price Bureau in an administrative proceeding regarding a vertical...more

King & Spalding

Supreme Court Rules Apple Must Face Antitrust Suit by App Store Purchasers

King & Spalding on

On May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision holding that iPhone owners who purchased applications through Apple’s App Store were “direct purchasers” who could sue Apple for monopolization....more

Jones Day

Insights from the Supreme Court’s Apple v. Pepper Antitrust Decision

Jones Day on

In May 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision in Apple v. Pepper, one of the Court's most significant antitrust rulings of the last several years. In a majority opinion authored by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court...more

K&L Gates LLP

Follow The Money: The Supreme Court Defines the “First Purchaser” to Whom Illinois Brick Limits Antitrust Damage Claims as a...

K&L Gates LLP on

In a 5–4 decision, in Apple, Inc. v. Pepper, the U.S. Supreme Court (the “Court”) followed the its 1977 precedent in Illinois Brick v. Illinois, which limits the assertion of antitrust damage claims to the first purchaser...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Future of Antitrust Class Actions Foreshadowed in Apple Inc. v. Pepper

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on

On May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court issued its most recent decision relating to antitrust class action litigation. The case, Apple Inc. v. Pepper, No. 17-204, could represent a significant shift in antitrust class action...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

SCOTUS Blows Down Apple’s House Made of Illinois Brick

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

In a 5-4 split decision, the U.S. Supreme Court appears to have reworked a longstanding precedent that has been a foundation of antitrust litigation for more than 40 years—the “direct purchaser” rule of Illinois Brick, which...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Evolving Antitrust Principles in the Age of Big Tech: Supreme Court Allows Antitrust Suit to Move Forward Against Apple

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP on

In a recent decision decided on May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court allowed an antitrust suit to move forward against Apple.  Consumers brought suit based on Apple’s operation of its App Store – which serves as the exclusive...more

Carlton Fields

Supreme Court Upholds Ninth Circuit Decision: Antitrust Action Against Apple May Proceed

Carlton Fields on

In a 5-4 ruling issued on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court in Apple Inc. v. Pepper determined that iPhone users may proceed with their claims against Apple over its alleged anticompetitive app store practices. The decision...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Apple Inc. v. Pepper: The Supreme Court Chips Away at Illinois Brick, Allowing iPhone Users to Sue Apple for Monopolizing iPhone...

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP on

• The U.S. Supreme Court split 5-4 on how to apply Illinois Brick’s prohibition on federal indirect purchaser lawsuits to a case where plaintiff app purchasers bought apps from the Apple App Store, paying a price set by the...more

Fox Rothschild LLP

App Store Purchasers Entitled To Bite At The Antitrust Apple, Says Supreme Court

Fox Rothschild LLP on

The United States Supreme Court decided this week that purchasers of apps through the Apple App Store have standing under federal antitrust law to bring a class-action lawsuit against the tech giant....more

Alston & Bird

U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies the Direct-Purchaser Rule, Allows App Purchasers to Proceed Against Apple

Alston & Bird on

Wondering if you’re a direct purchaser from a monopoly? There’s a Supreme Court ruling for that. Our Antitrust Team downloads the Court’s Apple v. Pepper decision and considers its conclusions and implications....more

Holland & Knight LLP

Supreme Court Allows Antitrust Suit to Proceed Against Apple

Holland & Knight LLP on

On May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of iPhone owners who are suing Apple. The iPhone owners claim that Apple, through its App Store, has established a monopoly and uses that power to charge consumers more for...more

Weintraub Tobin

U.S. Supreme Court Allows App Store Anti-Trust Class Action To Proceed Against Apple

Weintraub Tobin on

In APPLE INC. v. PEPPER ET AL., case number 17-204, the United States Supreme Court considered a case alleging Apple has monopolized the retail market for the sale of apps and has unlawfully used its monopolistic power to...more

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Supreme Court Holds Antitrust Claims of iPhone App Consumers Are Not Barred by Illinois Brick

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP on

On May 13, 2019, in a 5-4 decision in Apple Inc. v. Pepper, the U.S. Supreme Court held that consumers of iPhone apps are direct purchasers of Apple and therefore have standing to sue the company for alleged monopolization of...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides Apple Inc. v. Pepper

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on

On May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Apple Inc. v. Pepper, No. 17-204, holding that iPhone owners who purchase apps from Apple’s App Store are “direct purchasers” from Apple and may sue Apple for alleged monopolization...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

Financial Daily Dose 5.14.2019 | Top Story: Stocks Plummet Amid Chinese Tariffs

Robins Kaplan LLP on

That massive thud?  That would be the other shoe dropping in the form of Chinese counter tariffs on another $60 billion in US goods in response to the White House’s trade moves last week....more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The Supreme Court - May 13, 2019

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

The Supreme Court of the United States issued three decisions this morning: Apple, Inc. v. Pepper, No. 17-204: Apple’s App Store is the only place iPhone users may lawfully buy apps. Although Apple sells the apps...more

Hogan Lovells

Antitrust, Competition, and Economic Regulation Quarterly Newsletter - Summer 2018

Hogan Lovells on

Read the latest news on antitrust, competition, and economic regulation in this summer edition of our quarterly ACER newsletter. ...more

McGuireWoods LLP

March Antitrust Bulletin

McGuireWoods LLP on

On February 5, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission opposed McWane Inc.’s petition to the U.S. Supreme Court to review the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ affirmation of a November 2015 FTC opinion that McWane unlawfully...more

McDermott Will & Emery

ANDA Update - October 2015

McDermott Will & Emery on

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

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Turing, Daraprim, and Refusals to Deal with Generic Manufacturers

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP on

Drug company Turing Pharmaceuticals made headlines recently when it reportedly raised the price of Daraprim, used commonly by AIDS patients to fight life-threatening infections, from $13.50 to $750 per tablet. Amidst...more

BakerHostetler

Drawing a Line in the Floor—Courts Are Struggling With the Overlap Between Design Patent and Copyright

BakerHostetler on

In 2003 the U.S. Supreme Court in Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. emphasized that “[t]he rights of a patentee or copyright holder are part of a ‘carefully crafted bargain,’… under which, once the patent or...more

41 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2
Next »

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

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide