On July 21, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit unanimously affirmed a district court judge’s conclusion that a prior settlement released a claim by plaintiff, a generic pharmaceutical manufacturer (the “Company”), that defendants engaged in “sham” patent litigation to block it from launching a generic version of defendants’ brand-name drug.  Perrigo Co, et al. v. AbbVie Inc, et al., No. 21-3026 (3d Cir. Jul. 21, 2022).

On August 2, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed an airline technology company’s petitions for review of regulations that petitioner alleged both restricted competition for airport flight slots and limited petitioner’s market opportunity for lack of standing.  Exhaustless Inc. v. FAA, Case No. 18-1304 (D.C. Cir. 2019).  The panel—Judges Karen Henderson, Sri Srinivasan and Cornelia Pillard—ruled that petitioner failed to show that it was injured or would incur injury from the Federal Aviation Association’s regulations limiting the number of flights out of LaGuardia and JFK Airports.

On May 8, 2019, Judge William M. Ray II of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motion to dismiss.  SmileDirectClub, LLC, v. Georgia Board of Dentistry, et al., No. 1:18-cv-02328-WMR (D.N.G. 2019).  Plaintiff alleged that the Georgia Board of Dentistry (the “Board”) and its individual members (collectively, “defendants”) conspired to exclude non-dentists from participating in the market for orthodontic aligner treatment services in Georgia.  The Court found that claims against the Board were barred by sovereign immunity, while claims against individual members of the Board were adequately pled and survived dismissal.

​On January 29, 2018, Judge Michael M. Baylson of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment in favor of the Philadelphia Parking Authority (“PPA”) and turned down the damage claims filed by Checker Cab Philadelphia, Inc. and several other medallion-holding taxicab companies (collectively “Checker”) against PPA for their alleged failure to adequately regulate alternative transportation network companies like Uber and Lyft (collectively, “TNCs”).  Checker Cab Philadelphia Inc. v. Philadelphia Parking Authority, 2:16-cv-04669 (E.D. Pa. 2018).  Judge Baylson held that TNCs and taxicab companies are not similarly situated, and that PPA should not be responsible for the taxicab companies’ alleged losses caused by increased competition in the transportation industry.  The Court summarized its holding as follows:  “A court is not suited to protect market participants from competition, or from changing consumer preferences.  The marketplace still speaks loudly, probably louder than a court can, and the resolution of competitive combatants must take place in the marketplace, rather than in a courtroom.”

Read more