Anna M. Pavlik

United First Partners
Special Situations Senior Counsel

Anna M. Pavlik is legal counsel at United First Partners. Prior to this, Anna worked as an associate with the U.S. antitrust group of Allen & Overy LLP, where she handled a variety of antitrust matters related to the U.S. and international M&A transactions, including representing clients in several major "second request" merger investigations by the DOJ and the FTC, advising clients on the antitrust filings, and managing local ex-U.S. antitrust counsel. She also advised the U.S. and foreign clients on corporate transactions and the SEC-registered capital markets transactions. Prior to becoming an attorney, Anna worked as a paralegal at Pfizer, actively contributing to the development, implementation and enforcement of Pfizer’s FCPA and healthcare law compliance programs, as well as achieved privacy compliance certification for consumer-facing websites and developed the in-house privacy training program. Native of Ukraine, Anna was awarded the U.S. Information Agency international CIS exchange scholarship to pursue her studies in the U.S. She holds a J.D. degree (cum laude) from Fordham University School of Law, and an LL.M. degree in European Union Law from Paris II Université Panthéon-ASSAS.

Linked authors

Pfizer (New York)
Fordham University
Concurrences (Paris)
Dentons (Washington)

Articles

2124 Bulletin

Anna M. Pavlik The US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit reaffirms that the “scope of the patent” test is the proper standard of antitrust review of the reverse payment settlements among pharmaceutical companies (Solvay/Watson/Paddock)

202

Introduction In FTC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Watson”), the Eleventh Circuit reaffirmed its long line of precedents and held that, absent sham litigation or fraud in obtaining the patent, the “scope of the patent” test should be used to evaluate antitrust challenges to the reverse payment (...)

Anna M. Pavlik The US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit holds that a reverse payment agreement between a brand-name pharmaceutical company and a generic would-be competitor should be analyzed under the “scope of the patent” test to determine antitrust liability (Abbott/Geneva/Zenith)

106

Introduction In Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharm., Inc. (“Valley Drug”), the Eleventh Circuit adopted the “scope of the patent” test to evaluate validity of reverse payment agreements between a brand-name pharmaceutical manufacturer and generic would-be competitors. The court viewed the case in (...)

Anna M. Pavlik A US Court of Appeals holds that a reverse payment agreement between a brand-name pharmaceutical manufacturer and a generic would-be competitor is a per se antitrust violation because the agreement exceeded the scope of the patent (Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation)

110

Introduction In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation (“Cardizem”) is one of the first in a long line of cases challenging the so-called reverse payment or pay-for-delay settlement agreements between the pharmaceutical companies. In Cardizem, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held (...)

Anna M. Pavlik The US Northern District Court of Texas holds that the supplier’s policy of linking the wholesale price to the distributor’s retail price does not amount to illegal resale price maintenance as long as the distributor is free to set its retail price (Lubbock Beverage / Miller Brewing)

217

Introduction The Lubbock Beverage Co. v. Miller Brewing Co.case involves allegations by a distributor that the supplier’s practice of linking the wholesale price to the distributor’s retail price amounted to illegal resale price maintenance (“RPM”) and vertical price fixing. The federal district (...)

Anna M. Pavlik The US Northern District Court of California holds that a price restriction provision that fixed price at which a licensee could make first sale of copyrighted videogames software is not illegal resale price maintenance (LucasArts Entertainment / Humongous Entertainment)

326

In LucasArts Entertainment Co. v. Humongous Entertainment Co. the district court held that price restriction provisions included in a license agreement of copyrighted software were not per se illegal or otherwise anticompetitive because “[t]he right to license a patent or copyright (and to (...)

Anna M. Pavlik The US Court of Appeals of Iowa (Eighth Circuit) finds a distributorship scheme to be a genuine agency relationship where a manufacturer retains significant business risks (Ryko Manufacturing / Eden Services)

220

Introduction Ryko, a manufacturer of car-wash equipment, filed an action for declaratory judgment against Eden, one of its distributors, for breach of a distributorship contract. Eden counterclaimed on several grounds, including antitrust violations, and won a jury verdict of $1.1 million in (...)

Anna M. Pavlik The US Supreme Court finds agency relationship between a manufacturer and its distributors to be a sham amounting to Resale Price Maintenance (RPM) focusing on the competitive effects and the purpose behind the agreements (Simpson / Union Oil)

293

Introduction Under the U.S. antitrust laws a manufacturer is free to set the prices at which it sells its own goods and is free to use intermediaries to facilitate the sales. When intermediaries come into the picture, however, one of the antitrust issues that may arise is whether, on the one (...)

Anna M. Pavlik The US Supreme Court finds a genuine agency relationship between a manufacturer and its distributors focusing on the form of consignment contracts and the parties’ actual practices (General Electric)

324

Introduction Under the U.S. antitrust laws a manufacturer is free to set the prices at which it sells its own goods and is free to use intermediaries to facilitate the sales. When intermediaries come into the picture, however, one of the antitrust issues that may arise is whether, on the one (...)

940 Review

Books

Send a message