Jennifer M. Driscoll-Chippendale

Lawyer (Partner)

Ms. Driscoll’s practice focuses on antitrust investigations, litigation and counseling. She has represented clients in international cartel investigations, merger investigations before the European Commission and Sherman Act Section Two class action lawsuits in federal courts. More recently, Ms. Driscoll has counseled international clients about antitrust laws relating to mergers and acquisitions and represented both corporations and individuals in the Antitrust Division’s investigation of the auto parts industry. Active in the ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Jennifer is a member of the International Task Force. She was formerly the Vice Chair of the International Committee and Chair of the Section’s 2010 Fall Forum. She has spoken on international cartel and unilateral conduct panels and has written articles and papers on those topics.

Linked author



1745 Bulletin

Helen Cho Eckert, Jennifer M. Driscoll-Chippendale The US FTC reaches a settlement with a pharmaceutical company and continues its march “to set a standard for the industry” in pay-for-delay settlement cases (Cephalon)


Federal Trade Commission Continues March “to Set a Standard for the Industry” with Cephalon Settlement* On May 28, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced it had reached a $1.2 billion settlement with Teva Pharmaceuticals, which acquired Cephalon in 2012, over reverse payment for its (...)

Helen Cho Eckert, Jennifer M. Driscoll-Chippendale The Californian Supreme Court delineates a structured rule of reason analysis for evaluating reverse payments or pay-for-delay settlements (Cipro)


California Supreme Court Delineates a Structured Rule of Reason Analysis for Evaluating Reverse Payment or Pay-for-Delay Settlements* On May 7, 2015, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in In re Cipro Cases I & II, Case No. S198616 (May 7, 2015) (Cipro). Cipro (...)

Jennifer M. Driscoll-Chippendale The US Supreme Court reverses the decisions of the lower courts and emphasizes that any model supporting a plaintiff’s damages case must be consistent with its liability case (Comcast / Behrend)


Comcast v. Behrend Sets a Higher Bar for Class Certification* On March 27, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court continued its recent trend of imposing more stringent standards for class certification in Comcast Corporation v. Behrend, 569 U.S. ___ (2013). At issue was whether the proponents of (...)

Send a message