2018 Antitrust M&A Year in Review
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.01.19
Crowell & Moring LLP is pleased to release its "2018 Antitrust M&A Year in Review." Following a year of significant and industry-transforming transactions, this publication provides insight and analysis into developments and trends in global antitrust enforcement of mergers and acquisitions. We examine how changes, such as the first full-year of Trump administration appointments at the Antitrust Division and the seating of five new FTC Commissioners, have impacted the U.S. antitrust agencies’ enforcement priorities and policies. We also look at merger control in the EU, which saw a record-breaking number of filings in 2018.
The report spotlights areas that were particularly noteworthy in 2018, including telecom and media, health care, and policy changes regarding vertical mergers. We also take a look at the implications of China’s regulatory activity on merger control and its role in global merger review.
Given the likelihood that recent antitrust merger enforcement developments foreshadow what to expect in the coming year, the 2018 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.
Click here to access the report PDF.
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 | 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
Client Alert | 7 min read | 11.24.25
Draft Executive Order Seeks to Short-Circuit AI State Regulation
