A student-run resource for reliable reports on the latest law and technology news

Archive for the ‘Antitrust’ Category

The TTAB’s Dangerous Dismissal of ‘Doubt’

Written By: Charles Colman, Acting Assistant Professor at NYU School of Law

Edited By: Elise Young

On September 30, 2013, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board[1] issued a troubling decision in In re Bottega Veneta Int’l S.a.r.l. Viewed in a broader context, the decision reflects the Board’s growing reluctance to apply the doctrine of “aesthetic functionality” in ex parte prosecution proceedings to bar the issuance of potentially anticompetitive trade-dress registrations.

Read More...

Posted On Nov - 12 - 2013 Comments Off READ FULL POST

E-book Conspiracy: Apple’s Agreement with Publishers Violates Antitrust Laws

United States v. Apple
By Elise Young – Edited by Gillian Kassner

On July 10, 2013, the Southern District of New York held that Apple played a central role in a conspiracy among major publishers to “eliminate retail price competition” in the e-book market. The court ruled that Apple was per se liable for violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act, finding “overwhelming evidence that the Publisher Defendants joined with each other in a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy” in which “Apple was a knowing and active member.”

Read More...

Posted On Jul - 21 - 2013 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Supreme Court Adopts “Rule of Reason” for Reverse Payment Settlements

Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc.
By Kathleen McGuinness – Edited by Jennifer Wong

On June 17, the Supreme Court ruled that reverse payment settlements between brand name and generic drug manufacturers were not presumptively unlawful, but were subject to scrutiny under the “rule of reason.” This holding overruled the Eleventh Circuit’s dismissal of the case and resolved a circuit split.

Read More...

Posted On Jul - 3 - 2013 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments on Reverse Payments to Generic Drug Manufacturers

FTC v. Actavis, Inc.
By Suzanne Van Arsdale – Edited by Jennifer Wong

On Monday, March 25, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in FTC v. Actavis, Inc., to determine the legality, under antitrust laws, of patent litigation settlements made by the maker of a brand-name drug to the maker of a generic competitor to keep the generic off the market temporarily, known as a “reverse payment agreement” or “pay for delay.”

Read More...

Posted On Apr - 3 - 2013 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Flash Digest: News in Brief

By Kathleen McGuinness

Congress Passes Symbolic Resolution: “No UN Control of the Internet”

Supreme Court Will Hear Case on the Legality of Pay-for-Delay Practices

Preliminary PTO Finding Invalidates Key Apple Multitouch Patent

Read More...

Posted On Dec - 9 - 2012 Comments Off READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • GooglePlay
Nintendo 3DS

Nintendo Wins Summar

By Yaping Zhang – Edited by Stacy Ruegilin On July 17, ...

Television

District Court Holds

By Anne Woodworth – Edited by Henry Thomas Order: Fox Television ...

Neiman Marcus

Data Breach Victims,

By Brittany Doyle – Edited by Ariane Moss Remijas v. Neiman ...

Magnifying Glass

How Far Can Law Enfo

By Kasey Wang – Edited by Ariane Moss State v. Rindfleisch, ...

Russia & China Cropped

Russia’s “Right

By Brittany Doyle - Edited by Ken Winterbottom The legislatures in ...