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 Claims Based on the Fraudulent Procurement of a Patent
- The Interplay between Antitrust and Patent Laws as the Wireless Device Industry Evolves
- Ninth Circuit Clarifies Scope of the “Direct Purchaser” Rule in Federal Antitrust Claims
- Interest-Rate Ruse: Understanding the Libor Scandal
- Excerpt from Ninth Circuit Clarifies Scope of the “Direct Purchaser” Rule in Federal Antitrust Claims:
The Ninth Circuit recently reviewed, and clarified, the scope of the limited exceptions to the Illinois Brick antitrust standing rule. In 1977, the U.S. Supreme Court announced in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, that generally speaking, an indirect purchaser that claims to have paid an overcharge passed on by the direct purchaser has no standing to sue under the Clayton Act. The Supreme Court’s intent was “(1) to eliminate the complications of apportioning overcharges between direct and indirect purchasers . . . ; (2) to eliminate multiple recoveries . . . ; and (3) to promote the vigorous enforcement of the antitrust laws . . . .” In In re ATM Fee, the Ninth Circuit, noting that exceptions to Illinois Brick should be narrowly construed, analyzed both the co-conspirator exception and the ownership/control exception and found that neither saved the plaintiffs from running into the “Illinois Brick wall.”
Please see full publication below for more information.