Carl W Hittinger

August 14, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

Over 100 years since Congress passed the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Federal Trade Commission has finally issued formal guidance interpreting the central provision underlying the agency's antitrust enforcement authority. Under Section 5 of the FTC Act, the FTC can take action against "unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce."

By Carl W. Hittinger and M. Mitchell Oates

4 minute read

August 12, 2015 | New Jersey Law Journal

The Third Circuit resolved an intra-circuit split by holding that a noncash, no-AG settlement agreement may also trigger antitrust scrutiny.

By Carl W. Hittinger and Lesley McCall Grossberg

8 minute read

August 12, 2015 | New Jersey Law Journal

The Third Circuit resolved an intra-circuit split by holding that a noncash, no-AG settlement agreement may also trigger antitrust scrutiny.

By Carl W. Hittinger and Lesley McCall Grossberg

8 minute read

August 03, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

In a recent opinion, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that an economic regulation passed by a state agency solely to protect one group from competition would not violate the constitutional guarantees of due process or equal protection. The court noted that such action might still violate antitrust laws, but went no further since no antitrust claim had been raised in the case. At least in the Second Circuit, this decision raises the stakes in future cases interpreting the scope of state-action immunity under the antitrust laws.

By Carl W. Hittinger and M. Mitchell Oates

9 minute read

August 02, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

In a recent opinion, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that an economic regulation passed by a state agency solely to protect one group from competition would not violate the constitutional guarantees of due process or equal protection. The court noted that such action might still violate antitrust laws, but went no further since no antitrust claim had been raised in the case. At least in the Second Circuit, this decision raises the stakes in future cases interpreting the scope of state-action immunity under the antitrust laws.

By Carl W. Hittinger and M. Mitchell Oates

9 minute read

July 06, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

In Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, 576 U.S. ____ (2015), the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether to overturn Brulotte v. Thys, 379 U.S. 29 (1964), its 1964 decision holding that it was per se unlawful for a patent owner to charge royalties for use of a patented invention after the licensed patent has expired. In a 6-3 decision by Justice Elena Kagan, the court in Kimble concluded that it was required by stare decisis to affirm the Brulotte rule.

By Carl W. Hittinger and M. Mitchell Oates

9 minute read

July 04, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

In , 576 U.S. ____ (2015), the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether to overturn , 379 U.S. 29 (1964), its 1964 decision holding that it was per se unlawful for a patent owner to charge royalties for use of a patented invention after the licensed patent has expired. In a 6-3 decision by Justice Elena Kagan, the court in concluded that it was required by stare decisis to affirm the rule.

By Carl W. Hittinger and M. Mitchell Oates

9 minute read

June 01, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

Section 5 of the FTC Act gives the Federal Trade Commission the authority to take action against "unfair methods of competition." The act was enacted over 100 years ago, and its legislative history indicates that it was left to the FTC to provide specific content to this broad and general language. However, there is still little clarity today regarding what conduct qualifies and does not qualify as an "unfair method of competition" that might subject an actor to enforcement proceedings, litigation, and/or monetary penalties.

By Carl W. Hittinger and M. Mitchell Oates

11 minute read

May 30, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

Section 5 of the FTC Act gives the Federal Trade Commission the authority to take action against "unfair methods of competition." The act was enacted over 100 years ago, and its legislative history indicates that it was left to the FTC to provide specific content to this broad and general language. However, there is still little clarity today regarding what conduct qualifies and does not qualify as an "unfair method of competition" that might subject an actor to enforcement proceedings, litigation, and/or monetary penalties.

By Carl W. Hittinger and M. Mitchell Oates

11 minute read

May 04, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

Nearly two years after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013), "reverse payment" settlements in patent litigation between brand-name drug manufacturers and potential generic entrants remain a hot topic in the antitrust world. At the American Bar Association's Antitrust Law Spring Meeting, held in Washington, D.C., last month, reverse payments were discussed at numerous sessions, including one session devoted exclusively to the topic.

By Carl W. Hittinger and M. Mitchell Oates

10 minute read