In In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litig., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108 (S.D. Fla. January 5, 2005), the Southern District of Florida held, on remand from the Eleventh Circuit, that "reverse" payments to settle patent infringement litigation under Hatch-Waxman were per se illegal.
Continue Reading...On November 2, 2004, California voters approved Proposition 64 which significantly limits lawsuits brought under California's Business and Professions Code § 17200, known as the Unfair Competition Law (the "UCL") and for false advertising under Business and Professions Code § 17500 ("False Advertising Law").
Continue Reading...On January 6, the Commission ruled that Chicago Bridge & Iron Company ("CB&I") illegally acquired Pitt-Des Moines, Inc.'s ("PDM") Engineered Construction and Water Divisions. The FTC did not initially investigate the deal when the parties filed their Hart Scott Rodino notification forms. Eight months after the HSR waiting period expired, the FTC challenged the merger administratively before an FTC Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). The CB&I case serves as a powerful reminder that the expiration of the HSR waiting period does not mean that the transaction has been approved by the FTC or cleared from a potential challenge.
Continue Reading...An interesting development has occurred internationally regarding the issue of retail shelf space control and management. On January 5, Israeli Antitrust Authority ("IAA") General Director Dror Strum announced the finalization of rules that prohibit, among other things, slotting allowances and category captaincy arrangements between large retailers and suppliers. Mr. Strum originally announced these rules in May 2003, but had provided time for industry to appeal.
Continue Reading...The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (the "Act") requires all drug companies, including brand-name companies and generic makers, to file certain agreements with the FTC and DOJ. Under the Act, whose filing requirements began on January 7, 2004, drug companies must file all brand-generic settlement agreements with the antitrust regulators within 10 days of their execution. Typically, these settlement agreements involve resolutions of patent disputes between brand-name companies and their generic competitors, and, in some instances, disputes between two generic competitors over issues that typically relate to exclusivity for first-to-file generic products.
Continue Reading...On January 14, 2005, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania enjoined the Antitrust Division from indicting and prosecuting Stolt-Nielsen S.A., Stolt-Nielsen Transportation Group, Ltd and Richard Wingfield. The decision is noteworthy because the Antitrust Division had taken the unusual step of attempting to indict and prosecute two corporations and an individual who participated in the Antitrust Division's corporate amnesty program. This was reportedly the first time that the DOJ had tried to revoke an immunity agreement. The district court basically held that the DOJ got what it bargained for when it gave the company and its employees immunity from prosecution for potential antitrust violations in exchange for information that led to convictions of other firms involved in a cartel.
Continue Reading...
Enter keywords:
Add this blog to your feeds or put your e-mail in the box below and hit GO to subscribe by e-mail.