District Court refuses to grant renewed motion to dismiss based on Noerr-Pennington doctrine. In re AndroGel Antitrust Litigation (No. II), MDL No. 2084 (re Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., No. 1:09-CV-955-TWT) (N.D. GA April 21, 2014).
More Posts
De Facto Exclusive Dealing: What a Difference a Day Makes
Failure to Adequately Allege Lack of Supply Cross-Elasticity Dooms Attempted Monopolization Action to “Quick Look” Dismissal
Antitrust Exclusive Dealing Claims Given “Short-Shrift” in Dismissal. How Long Is Short? An Analysis in Search of Context
Claims of Providing Truthful Marketing Information to Airports Issuing Bids for Duty Free Shops Fails to Allege Actionable Conspiracy or Attempted Monopolization
Allegations of Conspiracy to Limit Crop Production: Ripe for Analysis Under Capper-Volstead
Allegations of Conspiracy to Fix Prices in Ohio Rock Salt Duopoly Flunk “Plausibility” Analysis
ANDA Automatic Stay of FDA Approval Does Not Defeat Standing in Sham Litigation Antitrust Counterclaim
Antitrust Counterclaim in Patent Infringement Action Lacks Plausible Allegations of Competitive Injury
Aftermarket Monopolization Claims Dismissed as Afterthought
Subscribe: Subscribe via RSS
Blogs