1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Justice Department Requires Verizon to Divest Assets to Acquire Alltel

Justice Department Requires Verizon to Divest Assets to Acquire Alltel

Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.31.08

On October 30, 2008, the Department of Justice (DOJ) agreed to back the $28.1 million merger between Verizon Communications Corp. (Verizon) and Alltel Corp, so long as Verizon divested assets in 100 areas in 22 states where its operations overlap with Alltel's. The DOJ stated that the proposed transaction would have "substantially lessened competition" to the detriment of consumers in those areas and "would likely result in higher prices, lower quality and reduced network investments." Thomas O. Barnett, Assistant Attorney General in charge if DOJ's Antitrust Division, said that "the divestitures required … are among the most extensive required by the Department in a wireless case." The DOJ, along with Attorneys General of seven states, filed a civil lawsuit to block the proposed acquisition, and simultaneously filed the proposed settlement to resolve the competitive concerns. The complaint states that Verizon and Alltel are each other's closest competitor for a significant set of customers in 94 Cellular Marketing Areas (CMAs), as defined by the FCC. The proposed settlement requires divestitures in these 94 areas. Verizon is the second largest mobile wireless telecommunications services provider in the US; Alltel is the fifth larges service provider. The transaction is subject to review by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25

Defining Claim Terms by Implication: Lexicography Lessons from Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation

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....