FTC Announces Annual Update to HSR Thresholds
Client Alert | 2 min read | 01.24.24
The Federal Trade Commission announced its annual updates to the thresholds and filing fees related to the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (the HSR Act) on Monday. These dollar thresholds are indexed annually based on changes in the U.S. gross national product and the Consumer Price Index.
The HSR Act requires that certain transactions be notified prior to their consummation. This year, the “size-of-transaction" threshold for reporting mergers and acquisitions under the HSR Act will increase from $111.4 million to $119.5 million. In addition, the "size-of-person" threshold, the filing fee thresholds, and the fee schedule will all also increase. The new filing fee thresholds and fee schedule are as follows:
2024 Filing Fee |
2024 Size of Transaction |
|
$30,000 |
Less than $173.3 million |
|
$105,000 |
Not less than $173.3 million but less than $536.5 million |
|
$260,000 |
Not less than $536.5 million but less than $1.073 billion |
|
$415,000 |
Not less than $1.073 billion but less than $2.146 billion |
|
$830,000 |
Not less than $2.146 billion but less than $5.365 billion |
|
$2,335,000 |
$5.365 billion or more |
All of these revised thresholds will become effective thirty days after their publication in the Federal Register, which is expected in the next few days. Click here to read a full copy of the Commission's announcement, including a complete listing 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
