Pharmaceutical manufacturers are increasingly finding themselves defending decisions to list in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Orange Book patents that they assert are associated with their products. The...more
One notable opportunity associated with antitrust class action practice is the expert “hot tub,” which generally speaking is an in-court, on-the-record “debate” between dueling economists, with the court, parties, and experts...more
In October, the Department of Justice Antitrust Division announced its first criminal attempted monopolization charges in more than 40 years. In the case, U.S. v. Zito, Nathan Nephi Zito, the owner of a Montana paving...more
On October 31, the Antitrust Division of the US Department of Justice (DOJ) delivered on its promise to pursue criminal enforcement of Section 2 of the Sherman Act when it secured a guilty plea from a highway paving...more
In yet another signal in support of the notion that “the era of lax enforcement is over, and the new era of vigorous and effective antitrust law enforcement has begun,” on October 31 the Antitrust Division of the Department...more
To help you stay up to date on the enforcement trends impacting your compliance strategy, McDermott is pleased to invite you to the 2022 Enforcement Outlook webinar series, which covers key areas of enforcement on a monthly...more
In March 2021, our experienced intellectual property, antitrust, and health care litigation lawyers shared some predictions on antitrust policy and enforcement in the health care sector. In “Health Care Antitrust under...more
The Ninth Circuit has held that a putative class of nationwide consumers that brought damages claims under California law was erroneously certified. Until now, class actions asserting claims for plaintiffs across the country...more
DOJ’s antitrust case against Google presents several interesting and difficult issues. Google dominates the search engine market. No one can question that. But the question will eventually boil down to whether Google’s...more
The Department of Justice and eleven state Attorneys General filed an antitrust case against Google in the United States Court for the District of Columbia. DOJ’s filing was hurried at the behest of the Attorney General Bill...more
The Government’s Antitrust Action Against Google - On Oct. 20, 2020, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 11 state attorneys general filed a significant civil antitrust lawsuit against Google LLC in the District of Columbia...more
In a holding that could significantly broaden the antitrust inquiry in the context of the Hatch-Waxman regulatory scheme, on February 13, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued an opinion that may have...more
The hazy analytical framework for “bundling” cases has come into sharper focus, potentially making it harder for plaintiffs to prevail in certain antitrust cases. ...more
A federal judge in California has refused to allow indirect purchasers of semiconductor chips—i.e., cell phone consumers—to bring claims against Qualcomm under federal antitrust law....more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently addressed again when plaintiffs have standing to pursue federal antitrust claims under the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431...more
As the first court of appeals to address the issue of product hopping, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction, finding that product hopping is...more
On May 22, 2015, in a much-watched case, the Second Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction against Actavis PLC and its wholly owned subsidiary, Forest Laboratories, LLC (collectively “Actavis” or “Forest”), finding that...more
On April 20, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced that Cardinal Health, Inc. (“Cardinal”), agreed to pay $26.8 million to resolve allegations that it violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by monopolizing the...more
Government competition authorities in the United States are sometimes challenged, if not criticized, for not pursuing claims based on single firm conduct in maintaining a monopoly. The recent opinion of the United States...more
Traditionally, plaintiffs asserting claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act allege the existence of one or more product markets relevant to the defendants’ anticompetitive conduct and the defendants’ shares of those...more