Energy & Environmental Law Adviser
Product Liability & Mass Torts Blog
Employment Law Landscape
The Super Lawyers selection methodology includes a statewide nomination process, peer review by practice area, and independent research on candidates.
The list is comprised of those attorneys who are most recommended as top lawyers among their peers.
Thirty-nine Schiff Hardin attorneys have been selected for inclusion on the 2017 Illinois Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists.
Ninety-nine Schiff Hardin lawyers have been named to the 2017 Leading Lawyers list for Illinois and Michigan.
Forty Schiff Hardin attorneys have been recognized on the 2018 Illinois Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists.
Ninety-six Schiff Hardin lawyers have been named to the 2018 Leading Lawyers lists for Illinois and Michigan.
Schiff Hardin LLP is pleased to have 95 attorneys named to the 2019 Leading Lawyers list.
Two partners were recognized among “best of the best” on 2019 Illinois Top Lists
On April 15, 2015, a panel of the 11th Circuit affirmed a decision by a divided Federal Trade Commission that McWane, Inc. violated FTC Act Section 5 with a partial exclusive dealing program adopted to combat a rival.
Schiff Hardin Energy & Environmental Law Adviser
The Federal Trade Commission's Premerger Notification Office (FTC) has long interpreted Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) premerger notification requirements to cover exclusive licenses as a reportable acquisition (assuming all other requirements are met) if the licensor did not retain any rights to "make, use or sell" under the patent.
Last week, a 9th Circuit panel overturned the dismissal of plaintiffs’ tying and steering antitrust claims in the putative class action of Sidibe, et. al. v. Sutter Health.
Law360
In December 2015, the Department of Justice’s investigation into the alleged price-fixing of internet-sold wall posters resulted in the indictment of Daniel William Alston and his Britain-based company, Trod Ltd.
Exclusive dealing agreements, while common across industries, raise real antitrust issues for companies with arguably high market shares.
In late June, the Federal Trade Commission raised its maximum civil penalties. The new maximums will apply to civil penalties assessed after August 1, 2016, and will include civil penalties for violations that occurred prior to the effective date.
A lawsuit filed against the PGA Tour by a group of 168 golf caddies was recently dismissed with prejudice by the District Court for the Northern District of California.
Last week, a federal jury in Northern California found that Fiat Chrysler’s U.S. entity did not violate Robinson-Patman’s prohibition on price discrimination with its dealer incentive programs.
On January 21, 2016, the FTC announced the annual adjustments to the jurisdictional thresholds for premerger notification filings under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (HSR).
An antitrust lawsuit filed by Run Gum, a manufacturer of energy-enhanced chewing gum founded by two-time Olympic runner Nick Symmonds, was recently dismissed with prejudice in federal district court.
Last year, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the FTC’s finding that McWane, Inc. had violated Section 5 of the FTC Act via exclusive dealing.
Last August, the Federal Trade Commission issued an administrative complaint against 1-800 Contacts alleging that the company’s agreements with its competitors over the use of trademarks in search advertising violated FTC Act Section 5.
Last fall, the dominant hospital in Peoria, Ill. won summary judgment against a claim of anticompetitive, exclusive dealing agreements made by its major competitor.
On January 19, 2017, the FTC announced the annual adjustments to the jurisdictional thresholds for premerger notification filings under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (HSR).
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision delivered this week in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California (BMS) reaffirmed the Court’s commitment to limiting state courts’ jurisdiction over national class actions.
Whether dealing with online competitors, market disruption or regulatory uncertainty, companies operating in the U.S. face a host of new and ongoing challenges.
While there is general consensus in the antitrust community that antitrust enforcement should be focused on protecting competition, there is disagreement about how active antitrust enforcement should be.
Antitrust law has always been concerned about certain types of collaboration among competitors – but it has at times acknowledged that benchmarking, joint ventures, and information exchanges can promote competition if done properly.
Prices provide crucial information to buyers and sellers, and so have always been critical to a competitive economy and antitrust law.
Merger review has long been the aspect of antitrust law most visible in the general media – and the run-up to the November election was no exception.
Decades ago, antitrust enforcement officials developed the “9 No-No’s” regarding patents and licenses. The days of antitrust hostility toward intellectual property are behind us, but renewed tension between antitrust and intellectual property policy seems to be growing.
President Trump signed into law the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA) to modernize the CFIUS review process to address 21st century national security concerns today. Congress enacted FIRRMA as Title XVII of the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act, HR 5515.
In a recent speech, the head of the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) once again warned companies about the antitrust risks of certain agreements among employers not to hire each other’s employees.
On January 26, 2018, the Federal Trade Commission announced upward revisions to the jurisdictional thresholds for premerger notification filings under the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act.
On February 15, 2019, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced upward revisions to the jurisdictional thresholds for premerger notification filings under the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act.
