Jonathan H. Hatch

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler (New York)
Lawyer (Associate)

Jonathan Hatch is an associate in the firm’s litigation department. Mr. Hatch’s practice focuses on complex commercial actions, antitrust, and white collar defense and investigations, and he has handled a wide variety of litigation at all states, including pre-litigation counseling, discovery, dispositive motions practice, mediation, trial, and appeal. He holds a J.D. from New York University School of Law.

Linked authors

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler (New York)
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler (New York)
Siemens (New York)

Articles

881 Bulletin

Jonathan H. Hatch, Robert P. LoBue The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit potentially widens the opening for additional classes of plaintiffs to assert claims for antitrust injury (Hanover 3201 Realty / Village Supermarkets)

42

Third Circuit Provides Clarity to “Inextricably Intertwined” Basis of Antitrust Injury in Partially Reinstating Claims Against ShopRite* On November 12, 2015, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion partially reversing the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims in Hanover 3201 Realty, (...)

Deirdre McEvoy, Jonathan H. Hatch The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit clarifies analysis of alleged hub-and-spoke conspiracies under the Sherman Act (J. Ramsey / NAMM)

376

Ninth Circuit Clarifies Analysis of Alleged Hub-and-Spoke Conspiracies Under the Sherman Act* Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion affirming the dismissal of plaintiffs’ consolidated complaint in In re Musical Instruments and Equipment Antitrust Litigation. In addressing plaintiffs’ (...)

Jonathan H. Hatch, Robert P. LoBue, William Cavanaugh The US District Court for the Eastern district of New York reminds that potential defendants in certain Section 1 monopoly cases should be prepared to address a plaintiff’s “direct evidence” of harm to competition and may not be able to solely rely on its relative market share as a defense (American Express)

91

Court Rules Against American Express Based on Both Direct and Indirect Evidence of Harm to Competition* On February 19, 2015, the District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued its ruling on liability in United States v. American Express. Following a seven-week trial, the Court (...)

Jonathan H. Hatch, Robert P. LoBue A US District Court allows “product hopping” claims to proceed based on allegations of removal of prior formulation and disparagement of generic competition (Suboxone)

189

Court Allows “Product Hopping” Claims to Proceed in Suboxone Litigation Based on Allegations of Removal of Prior Formulation and Disparagement of Generic Competition* We’ve previously discussed antitrust claims related to “product hopping”—allegations that pharmaceutical manufacturers have (...)

Jonathan H. Hatch, Robert P. LoBue The US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit holds that it is fair to require foreign subsidiaries of American companies to seek a remedy in the courts of the country in which they choose to incorporate (Motorola / AU Optronics)

183

Seventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of 99% of Motorola’s Claims in LCD Case Based on Motorola’s Lack of Standing* On the day before Thanksgiving—less than two weeks after oral argument—the Seventh Circuit issued its ruling on Motorola’s interlocutory appeal in Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics (...)

Send a message