Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer (Washington)

Jonathan Gleklen

Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer (Washington)
Lawyer (Partner)

Jonathan Gleklen serves as chair of the firm’s US Antitrust/Competition practice. His practice focuses on antitrust issues affecting clients in high technology and network industries, including government merger review and investigations of alleged anticompetitive conduct, civil litigation, and counseling. He regularly represents clients before the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and state attorneys general and has been ranked as a leading antitrust lawyer by publications including Chambers USA, PLC’s Competition Law Handbook, Super Lawyers, and the International Who’s Who of Competition Lawyers and Economists. Mr. Gleklen was one of eleven US antitrust lawyers identified as a "Client Service All-Star" in 2016 based on a poll of general counsel by BTI Consulting Group. Mr. Gleklen serves as the Publications Officer of the American Bar Association’s Section of Antitrust Law, after previously serving as International Officer and as a member of the Section’s governing Council. He frequently speaks and writes on antitrust subjects, serving as the Editorial Chair of Antitrust Law Developments (7th Ed. 2012), the leading two-volume antitrust treatise, and earlier served as Editorial Chair of the Antitrust Law Journal. At the invitation of the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission, Mr. Gleklen serves as a Non-Governmental Advisor to the International Competition Network (ICN), an organization of more than 100 competition agencies from around the world that works to address antitrust enforcement and policy issues.

Linked authors

Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer (Silicon Valley)
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer (Washington)
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer (Brussels)
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer (Washington)
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer (Brussels)


642 Bulletin

Diane Bieri, Jonathan Gleklen, Kelly Smith Fayne, Tim Frazer The US Supreme Court holds that “reverse payment” patent settlements between brand-name drug manufacturers and would-be generic competitors should be reviewed under the antitrust rule of reason (Actavis)


On Monday, June 17, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in FTC v. Actavis, Inc., bringing some clarity to the antitrust treatment of so-called reverse payment patent settlements between brand-name drug manufacturers and would-be generic competitors, but leaving many open questions as (...)

Adam Linkner, Jonathan Gleklen The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit holds that reverse payment settlements between brand name and generic pharmaceutical manufacturers may be unlawful under the rule of reason (Schering-Plough)


On July 16, 2012, in an opinion authored by Judge Sloviter, the Third Circuit issued its decision in the K-Dur “reverse payments” case, holding that although such settlements are not illegal per se, they are presumptively unlawful under the rule of reason. In so doing it rejected the approach (...)

Send a message