§Why CasetextPricing

Adel Tawfilis v. Allergan, Inc.

REPLY In Support Of Motion NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Liability As To Count I PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PARIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 62 REDACTED VERSION OF PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

19 Cited authorities

  1. Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.

    551 U.S. 877 (2007)   Cited 462 times   75 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the rule of reason rather than per se illegality applies to vertical price restraints

  2. Continental T. V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc.

    433 U.S. 36 (1977)   Cited 991 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that vertical nonprice restraints are subject to the rule of reason

  3. Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Actavis, Inc.

    570 U.S. 136 (2013)   Cited 309 times   92 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "reverse payment settlements . . . can sometimes violate the antitrust laws"

  4. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma

    468 U.S. 85 (1984)   Cited 666 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding that NCAA restrictions on televising college football games are subject to Rule of Reason analysis for the “critical” reason that “horizontal restraints on competition are essential if the product is to be available at all”

  5. Business Electronics v. Sharp Electronics

    485 U.S. 717 (1988)   Cited 511 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a vertical restraint of trade is not per se illegal under § 1 of the Sherman Act unless it includes some agreement on price or price levels

  6. Northern Pac. R. Co. v. United States

    356 U.S. 1 (1958)   Cited 1,397 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding market power based on the uniqueness of the owned land

  7. Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.

    441 U.S. 1 (1979)   Cited 579 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding generally that blanket and per-program licenses by ASCAP and BMI were not per se antitrust violations, but rather these licenses, "when attacked, . . . should be subjected to a more discriminating examination under the rule of reason"

  8. Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society

    457 U.S. 332 (1982)   Cited 472 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that price fixing between medical organizations is per se unreasonable

  9. United States v. Topco Associates

    405 U.S. 596 (1972)   Cited 650 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an agreement between competitors at the same level of the market structure to allocate territories in order to minimize competition" is a per se violation

  10. Palmer v. BRG of Georgia, Inc.

    498 U.S. 46 (1990)   Cited 229 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding an agreement between bar review course providers dividing market territories for the purpose of raising prices was per se illegal

  11. Section 1 - Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty

    15 U.S.C. § 1   Cited 2,933 times   70 Legal Analyses
    Forbidding every "contract, combination . . . or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States"

  12. Section 261 - Ownership; assignment

    35 U.S.C. § 261   Cited 428 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Holding that patent rights are "assignable in law by an instrument in writing"