Tagged: Unfair Competition
As we recently reported, in January 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a proposed nationwide ban on non-compete clauses. The proposed rule would restrict employers from enforcing all existing and future non-compete agreements with their employees. The FTC announced that it will host a free and open public forum on Thursday, February 16, 2023, from 12 p.m. to 3 p.m. EST, examining the proposed rule and providing the public (workers and business owners) with an opportunity to ask questions, express concerns, and share their past experiences with non-competes. Attendees may register to speak at the forum on the FTC’s website. Registration to speak is on a first come, first served basis. Details about the forum and registration may be found here. The public may also submit written comments on the proposed ban through March 20, 2023, at Regulations.gov. Interested parties should monitor the situation accordingly and consider contacting the firm if they have questions about the proposed rule or seek guidance ahead of the forum and comment period deadline.
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, and reduce transaction costs. Lobbying of the federal government regarding the passage and enforcement of...
As reported on this blog on September 27, 2016, the FTC issued a Final Order holding that LabMD’s data security practices were “unreasonable” and constituted an “unfair” business practice in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. §45(a) and (n). The findings were a clear signal of the FTC’s expanding efforts to regulate data security and to incentivize companies handling sensitive data to implement and maintain strong data security practices. On Thursday, November 10, 2016, the 11th Circuit stayed enforcement of the FTC’s Final Order pending a full hearing and final decision on LabMD’s appeal, and called into question the validity of the FTC’s conclusions as to what may constitute an actionable “privacy harm” following a data security breach.
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “the Commission”) recently confirmed that disclosure of sensitive consumer data as a result of inappropriate data security practices may be deemed an “unfair act or practice” in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”). This decision is important because the FTC reached this conclusion with no evidence of actual economic or physical harm, or any actual health and safety risks as a result of the disclosure. The Commission’s decision is also notable because it emphasizes the FTC’s expanding reach in the regulation of data security.
On December 5, 2014, an 11-person jury decided in favor of defendants AstraZeneca PLC and Ranbaxy Laboratories, Inc. in the first pay-for-delay class action trial since the United States Supreme Court in FTC v. Actavis, Inc. opened the door on antitrust suits based on patent settlements. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. was also defending the suit before reaching a settlement shortly before the trial ended. United States District Court Judge William Young of the District of Massachusetts last year permitted certification for the class members, including union health plans and insurance companies, based on an alleged injury of supracompetitive prices for AstraZeneca’s brand name heartburn drug, Nexium®.
We have previously posted on proposed federal and state legislation aimed at addressing the toll of “patent troll” litigation by non-practicing entities (“NPEs”) on the U.S. economy. Additionally, a recent Federal Circuit ruling relaxing the standard for finding “an exceptional case” to justify attorneys’ fees in patent infringement actions also appears to have been motivated by need to address NPE litigation. Now the United States trade commissions want to enter the fray. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), through its recent decision In the matter of Certain Optical Disc Drives, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same, limited the ability of licensing entities, whose patent-related activities are purely revenue driven, to bring actions under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(3). Additionally, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has recently been given approval to conduct a study on NPEs to examine how they operate and to what extent they affect competition and innovation.
With the close of the United States Supreme Court’s 2013-14 term, we offer this wrap-up of the Court’s term, focusing on the Court’s most important business and commercial cases (excluding intellectual property opinions): Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund: The Court upheld the fraud-on-the-market theory first set forth in Basic Inc. v. Levinson, which allows investors to satisfy the reliance element of a section 10b-5 securities fraud claim by invoking a presumption that the price at which stock is purchased in an efficient market reflects all public, material information — including material misstatements.
In Powder River Basin Resource Council v. Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2014 WY 37 (2014), the Wyoming Supreme Court recently held that state district courts receiving appeals of denied record requests must independently determine whether the information must be disclosed or not, rather than merely reviewing the determination of the Commission as an administrative decision. Further, when determining whether the disclosed chemicals qualify as trade secrets protected under the Wyoming Public Records Act (WPRA), Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-4-203, the Wyoming high court held that district courts must apply the more narrow definition of what constitutes a trade secret under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) as developed through federal case law when determining if the chemical formulations used in fracking qualify as trade secrets protected under the Wyoming Public Records Act (WPRA), Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-4-203.
As the so-called pay for-delay case is ripening for Supreme Court oral argument on March 25, 2013, on Tuesday a bi-partisan group of senators introduced legislation meant to strongly deter such arrangements. The introduction of the bill, known as the “Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act,” follows an annual FTC report disclosing 40 potential pay-for-delay deals struck in the 2012 fiscal year — a jump from 28 such deals in 2011. The goal of the bill is “to prohibit brand name drug companies from compensating generic drug companies to delay the entry of a generic drug into the market.” Such reverse payments (payments made by branded pharmaceutical patent holders to generic challengers to postpone market entry) are considered lawful by some, and anti-competitive by others, including the FTC.
On January 7, 2013, Cincinnati Reds second baseman, and three-time Gold Glove Award-winner, Brandon Phillips, moved to dismiss Rawlings Sporting Goods Co. Inc.’s (“Rawlings”) trademark infringement action arising from his use of a glove with gold-colored features. Rawlings is the company that grants baseball players the RAWLINGS GOLD GLOVE AWARD®, which consists of a gold-colored baseball glove attached to a solid base, dating back to 1957. Players who win the award are also given a functional baseball glove that has a metallic gold indicia on it. Last summer, Rawlings sued Phillips and Wilson Sporting Goods Company (“Wilson”) in the Eastern District of Missouri alleging that Wilson’s manufacture of, and Phillips’ use of, a baseball glove with metallic gold-colored webbing, web stitching and lettering infringe Rawlings’ rights in and to its GOLD GLOVE trademarks and the trade dress in its functional glove.