DOJ Issues Merger Process Reforms
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.18.06
The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice recently announced a series of important reforms to its merger review process. These reforms are designed to improve the efficiency of the Division's investigations, and to reduce both the cost and time required to complete merger investigations in which a "Second Request" has been issued pursuant to the Hart-Scott-Rodino ("HSR") Antitrust Improvements Act.
At the core of the DOJ's issued reforms is a voluntary option through which companies may be able to significantly reduce the burden of complying with a Second Request. In exchange for the parties' agreement to certain timing and other procedural agreements, the Division announced that it will limit the scope of a Second Request to require only the production of responsive materials from a firm's central files and a targeted list of no more than 30 employees. The Division also announced a change in its Model Second Request, reducing the default search period from between three to four years to two years prior to the date of the request's issuance. These reforms recognize that explosive growth in the amount of electronic data stored by firms has substantially increased the volume of material potentially responsive to a Second Request, and are intended to provide a mechanism to reduce the burden of production. These reforms are largely similar to those issued earlier by the Federal Trade Commission, although they provide a more flexible mechanism with respect to the length of the second waiting period following the parties' certification of compliance with the Second Request.
In addition to these changes, the Division also announced that it will seek greater participation by the parties to a transaction during the initial 15-or 30-day waiting period. Through more substantive consultation, including the issuance of voluntary information requests and interviews with corporate representatives, this initiative is intended to further facilitate a more efficient and effective merger review process.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25
Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims. Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution. Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.14.25
Microplastics Update: Regulatory and Litigation Developments in 2025
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.13.25
