FTC Announces New HSR and Section 8 Thresholds
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.10.13
The Federal Trade Commission announced today that it would increase the jurisdictional thresholds applicable to both the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (the "HSR Act") and Section 8 of the Clayton Act. These dollar thresholds are indexed annually based on changes in the U.S. gross national product.
The HSR Act requires that certain large transactions be notified prior to their consummation. This year, the minimum "size-of-transaction" threshold for reporting mergers and acquisitions will increase from $68.2 million to $70.9 million. In addition, the "size-of-person" thresholds, the filing fee thresholds and the thresholds applicable to certain exemptions will also increase. These revisions will become effective thirty days after their publication in the Federal Register, which is expected in the next week.
The FTC also issued revised thresholds relating to the prohibition of certain interlocking directorates under Section 8 of the Clayton Act. Those revisions take effect immediately upon their publication in the Federal Register.
Click here to read a full copy of the Commission's announcement, including all of the revised thresholds.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
