The coronavirus pandemic is having repercussions in all sectors of the legal community, as illustrated in the prior entries in our “The Coronavirus Pandemic and Your Business: How We Can Help” client alert series. Antitrust law is no exception. The Bureau of Competition of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) have put out two joint statements in response to COVID-19, one on March 24 and another just last week. Both contain reminders and useful guidance concerning cooperation among market participants during these unprecedented times. Recognizing that meeting the challenges posed by the pandemic will require collaborative efforts to address pressing health and safety needs, FTC and DOJ highlighted in their March 24 statement certain types of coordinated activity that the antitrust laws generally permit – because they lead to outcomes that are efficiency-enhancing and pro-competitive. These include: Collaboration on research and development, as may be the case with R&D for developing a potential vaccine. Sharing of information regarding technical know-how as opposed to firm-specific data on prices and outputs. Standard setting designed to assist healthcare providers in clinical decision-making. Joint purchasing arrangements among medical providers that aid procurement, perhaps of PPE,...
27 Gibbons Commercial & Criminal Litigation Department Attorneys Selected to 2020 New Jersey Super Lawyers and Rising Stars
Attorneys from the Gibbons Commercial & Criminal Litigation Department were featured in New Jersey Super Lawyers and New Jersey Super Lawyers Rising Stars, with 18 Department attorneys on the 2020 Super Lawyers list and nine on the 2020 Rising Stars list. These attorneys were listed in a wide range of categories, including Antitrust, Business Litigation, Class Action, Communications, Construction Litigation, Criminal Defense, Criminal Defense: White Collar, Insurance Coverage, and Media/Advertising. Highlights of this year’s New Jersey Super Lawyers list include the top-tier rankings earned by two Department attorneys: Top 10 Attorneys in New Jersey Lawrence S. Lustberg, Co-Chair, Commercial & Criminal Litigation Department Top 100 Attorneys in New Jersey Michael R. Griffinger, Director, Commercial & Criminal Litigation Department Lawrence S. Lustberg, Co-Chair, Commercial & Criminal Litigation Department The Gibbons attorneys listed in the 2020 issue of New Jersey Super Lawyers are: Frederick W. Alworth Guy V. Amoresano Robert C. Brady Thomas J. Cafferty Patrick C. Dunican Jr. Michael R. Griffinger Jennifer A. Hradil Bruce A. Levy Lawrence S. Lustberg Robert J. MacPherson Michael R. McDonald Brian J. McMahon Mary Frances Palisano Damian V. Santomauro Peter J. Torcicollo Thomas R. Valen Christopher Walsh John T. Wolak Those listed in the 2020...
No Harm to Competition: Third Circuit Upholds Decision for Uber in Antitrust Challenge by Philadelphia Taxicab Drivers
The Third Circuit’s newly-issued precedential opinion in Philadelphia Taxi Association v. Uber Technologies, Inc. is a classic reminder that the antitrust laws protect against harm to competition – not harm to competitors. In 2016, a group of Philadelphia taxicab drivers sued Uber in federal district court, alleging that the ride-sharing service was unlawfully attempting to monopolize the vehicle-for-hire market in Philadelphia. Plaintiffs pointed to the fact that, in October 2014, just prior to Uber’s entry into Philadelphia, there were 7,000 taxi drivers, and each of the city’s 1,610 taxicab medallions was valued at an average of $545,000. Two years later, 1,200 medallion taxi drivers had fled to Uber, those still driving taxis saw a thirty percent decline in their earnings, and the value of a medallion plummeted to just $80,000. The district court dismissed the complaint, holding that the plaintiffs had not pled antitrust injury – i.e., harm that the antitrust laws are designed to prevent – and thus did not have antitrust standing to maintain their suit. This appeal followed. The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal but, unlike the district court, did so first based on plaintiffs’ failure to plausibly allege the elements of their attempted monopolization claim – i.e.,...
Wide of the Goal: Second Circuit Says No to Soccer League’s Request for Preliminary Injunction in Antitrust Suit
Coming, coincidentally, just days before the start of the 2018 Major League Soccer season, the recent Second Circuit decision in North American Soccer League, LLC v. United States Soccer Federation, Inc. has key takeaways for antitrust and injunction law practitioners. As the governing body for soccer in the U.S. and Canada, the United States Soccer Federation (U.S. Soccer) promulgates Standards, tied to the number and location of a league’s teams, that it uses to designate leagues as Division I, II, or III each year. Major League Soccer (MLS) has been the only D-I men’s soccer league since it began play in 1995, while the North American Soccer League (NASL), despite aspirations to compete directly against MLS, has operated since 2011 as a D-II league. Last year, U.S. Soccer rejected NASL’s application for a D-II designation for the 2018 season. Rather than filing instead for D-III status, NASL sued U.S. Soccer in federal court in Brooklyn, alleging that U.S. Soccer violates Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by selectively applying its Standards to restrain competition among top-tier U.S. men’s professional soccer leagues. As part of its lawsuit, NASL sought a preliminary injunction requiring U.S. Soccer to grant it D-II status for...
Applying Federal Common Law, Third Circuit Approves Assignment, Without Consideration, of Antitrust Claims from Direct Purchaser to Indirect Purchaser
In a recent precedential opinion in a case of first impression, the Third Circuit held that a written, express assignment of federal antitrust claims is valid even though no consideration is exchanged between the assignee and assignor. In doing so, the Third Circuit revived a putative class action by an indirect purchaser whose complaint had been dismissed by the District of Delaware for lack of standing under Illinois Brick.
In the increasingly crowded field of pay-for-delay litigation, the FTC blazed a new trail last week when – for the first time – it sued a branded drug maker for agreeing not to launch its own “authorized generic” in competition with a generic competitor. The so-called “no-AG commitment” was part of a deal struck by Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. in exchange for a promise by Impax Laboratories to postpone by 2½ years its release of a lower-cost generic version of Endo’s lucrative Opana ER painkiller. That deal, according to the Complaint filed on March 30 in federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, let Endo prolong its alleged monopoly and, with it, the supracompetitive profits it earned from Opana. Meanwhile, the lower prices that come with the entry of a generic were delayed.
Opinion Holds That Non-Monetary Reverse Payments Trigger Actavis Antitrust Scrutiny, Creating Split Within D.N.J.
An opinion issued on October 6, 2014, by Judge Sheridan of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey further muddied the legal waters as to what type of “reverse payments” made by makers of brand-name pharmaceuticals to their generic competitors to settle patent litigation are subject to antitrust scrutiny under the Supreme Court’s decision in FTC v. Actavis. Judge Sheridan held that Actavis applies to non-monetary payments, such as a promise by the brand-name manufacturer in exchange for which the generic agrees to delay entry. Importantly, however, a non-monetary payment must be capable of being reliably converted to a monetary value so that it can be evaluated against the Actavis factors. Judge Sheridan’s holding runs counter to Judge Walls’s decision earlier this year in In re Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, which limited Actavis to reverse payments involving an exchange of cash and was the subject of a prior blog post.
A recent opinion from the District of New Jersey illustrates the breadth of defenses available to an entity accused of violating the antitrust laws. World Phone Internet Services, Pvt. Ltd., a provider of VoIP services in India, and its majority shareholder, TI Investment Services, LLC, sued Microsoft (owner of Skype), alleging that Microsoft’s intentional failure to abide by the requirements of India’s licensing regime for VoIP service providers allowed it to undercut World Phone’s pricing, which advantage Microsoft supposedly used to quash its competitors. In granting Microsoft’s motion to dismiss the complaint in TI Investment Services, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., the Court relied on four independent grounds to decide that plaintiffs’ claims of monopolization and collusion did not pass muster under the Sherman Act.
Recent years have seen a significant number of antitrust challenges to so-called “reverse payment” pharmaceutical patent litigation settlements between brand name manufacturers and their generic competitors. The Supreme Court’s decision in FTC v. Actavis resolved a split among the courts of appeal, and held that settlements in which “large and unjustified” reverse payments are made are subject to antitrust scrutiny in the form of a traditional “rule of reason” analysis. In the wake of Actavis, the lower courts have begun to grapple with the question of what, if any, application Actavis has to the disposition of antitrust challenges to patent settlements that do not include a large payment of cash by the brand producer to the generic, but may include other forms of non-monetary consideration.
The Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (“FTAIA”) removes from the ambit of the Sherman Antitrust Act otherwise actionable anti-competitive conduct abroad that does not have a “direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable” effect on domestic commerce. Questions persist as to what effects qualify as being sufficiently “direct” and also whether the FTAIA is jurisdictional in nature or goes to the substantive merits of a claim. A recent decision out of the Southern District of New York addressed both questions in dismissing an antitrust suit brought by one Chinese corporation against its Chinese competitors.