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

Archive for the ‘Antitrust’ Category

Susan Crawford Explains the Significance of the Comcast–Time Warner Cable Merger
By Gizem Orbey

“Internet access feels like clean water and energy, but it is treated like a luxury, and the whole country is forced towards a giant buffet,” explained Susan Crawford, a visiting professor at Harvard Law School, at a JOLT event last week. Professor Crawford, who is also a former White House Special Assistant, spoke about the significance of Comcast’s recent bid to buy Time Warner Cable for $45 billion. The proposed merger would consolidate a third of the nation’s cable marketplace into Comcast’s hands.

Read More...

Posted On Mar - 11 - 2014 1 Comment READ FULL POST

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
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
Facebook International

Facebook Blocks Brit

By Javier Careaga – Edited by Mila Owen Many insurance companies ...

computer-typing1

Airbnb challenges Ne

By Daisy Joo – Edited by Nehaa Chaudhari Complaint to Declare ...

Unknown

Medtronic v. Bosch p

By Nehaa Chaudhari – Edited by Grace Truong Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert ...

Unknown

Flash Digest: News i

By Li Wang – Edited by Henry Thomas California DMV Discuss ...

Unknown

Flash Digest: News i

By Cristina Azcoitia - Edited by Kayla Haran FTC Explores Crowdfunding ...