Anna M. Pavlik is Global Senior Counsel at United First Partners in New York. 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.
364
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 (...)
2799
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 (...)
290
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 (...)
282
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 (...)
395
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 (...)
319
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 (...)
755
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 (...)
469
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 (...)
426
In a brief and unanimous decision in United States v. Colgate & Co., the Supreme Court announced in 1919 that in the absence of any purpose to create or maintain a monopoly, the Sherman Act “does not restrict the long recognized right of trader or manufacturer engaged in an entirely (...)
217
This section selects books on themes related to competition laws and economics. This compilation does not attempt to be exhaustive but rather a survey of themes important in the area. The survey usually covers publication over the last three months after publication of the latest issue of (...)
784
Interview conducted by Kent Bernard, Fordham School of Law and Anna Pavlik, Institute of Competition Law. What is your background? I’ve had a focus on antitrust work since starting at Weil Gotshal, with my first large matter being the predatory pricing case that Northwest and Continental (...)
Price
€215.00
William E. Kovacic: An Antitrust Tribute Liber Amicorum Vol. II
