In a resounding victory for public-private partnerships, the Fourth Circuit's decision in Cunningham v. Lester, et al., No. 20-1086, — F.3d —- (4th Cir. Mar. 4, 2021)

On January 10, 2006, the Supreme Court held that a manufacturer may not be held liable for secondary-line price discrimination (price discrimination that injures competition among the discriminating seller’s customers) under the Robinson-Patman Act, in the absence of a showing that the manufacturer discriminated between dealers competing to resell its product to the same retail customer. This decision makes clear that each individual bidding situation is the appropriate relevant market for deter

What follows is a guest post from Joe Metro and Andy Bernasconi of Reed Smith. Andy has some experience with the guest post gig (here and here) ...

This week, the Court addresses the bounds of the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).

In another court decision narrowing state action immunity, a federal district court in Texas has denied the Texas Medical Board's ("TMB") motion to dismiss an antitrust challenge to its new rules on telemedicine providers.

Can two competitors form a joint venture and sell products under their two competing product brands through the joint venture at a single agreed-upon price? The Supreme Court recently considered this question in Texaco, Inc. v. Dagher, ruling in a unanimous (8-0) decision issued on February 28, 2006, that it was not per se illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act for true joint venturers to enter into such a product pricing agreement.

In an April 3, 2020 letter, Florida's largest advocacy group for long-term care providers, Florida Health Care Association, asked Florida Governor Ron DeSantis to extend...

In a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court held that states and their agencies cannot invoke sovereign immunity as a defense to claims of discrimination brought under the Uniformed...

You are a state-government contractor. You respond to an RFP issued by a state-government entity. In your bid proposal, you submit documents that contain your trade secrets.

The Federal Circuit recently revived the long-dormant legal canon that the possession of a patent creates a rebuttable presumption of market power - at least in tying cases brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act

The Supreme Court made clear that any claim of immunity by a foreign state must rise or fall based on the text of the FSIA.

One decision, two far-reaching effects. This aptly describes the Supreme Court's Jan. 21, 2020, decision to deny Facebook's petition for certiorari in Patel v. Facebook.

On April 23, 2004, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida partially granted defendant aircraft manufacturer's motion to dismiss on the grounds that, although plaintiffs stated a relevant market, neither a company's officers nor an employee of its competitor, could enter into a conspiracy to monopolize.

On June 17, the Texas Medical Board ("Board") filed a brief with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reiterating that the Board's rulemaking processes are protected under the state action immunity doctrine...

Entities with patent-related relationships with state universities scored a victory under the rarely implicated (at least for patent practitioners) doctrine of sovereign immunity.

In a precedential decision that will impact numerous recognition proceedings in the U.S., the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit...

In this appeal, the Federal Circuit has been asked to consider the constitutionality of IPR's when applied to patents that issued after enactment, but before the effective date ...

In July, the U.S. Senate introduced the Art Market Integrity Act (AMIA), legislation that would require art dealers and auction houses to comply...

On Tuesday, June 29, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-4 to reverse the Third Circuit and affirm that authorized natural gas pipeline developers have the ability to exercise federal eminent...

A New Jersey Bankruptcy Court holds that, unless waived, the Bankruptcy Code does not abrogate sovereign immunity for Indian Tribes because Congress must make clear and unequivocal its intent to abrogate an Indian Nation's immunity.