2015 Antitrust M&A Year in Review
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.26.16
Crowell & Moring LLP is pleased to release its "2015 Antitrust M&A Year in Review." Following a record-breaking year for volume of transactions, this publication provides insight and analysis into developments and trends in global antitrust enforcement of mergers and acquisitions. We examine the antitrust agencies' increasing focus on protecting innovation and emerging forms of competition, requiring broader remedies and more competitive divestiture buyers, and highly scrutinizing transactions in markets where prior consolidation was not challenged. We also look at the agencies' increasing willingness to challenge transactions through litigation, and their relatively successful recent track record.
The report spotlights areas that were particularly noteworthy in 2015, including telecom, health care, energy, and IP and innovation. We also take a look at the first year of Commissioner Vestager's merger enforcement in Europe, the growing influence of third parties in merger review proceedings, and procedural trends at the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice Antitrust Division that impact the cost and timeline of merger review in the U.S.
Given the likelihood that recent antitrust merger enforcement developments foreshadow what to expect in the coming year, the 2015 Antitrust M&A Year in Review provides insight into trends that will be highly relevant going forward. We hope that you will find this report useful and welcome your feedback.
DOWNLOAD PDF:
2015 Antitrust M&A Year in Review
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
