Matt Evola

McDermott Will & Emery (Washington)
Lawyer (Associate)

Matt Evola focuses his practice on antitrust, regulatory and litigation matters. He has additional experience in consumer protection, government investigations, and white collar defense. During law school, Matt was highly involved in pro bono initiatives, working with the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless and DC Law Students in Court. He also acted as senior articles editor for the American Criminal Law Review (ACLR), actively contributing to the publication’s online blog Mens Rea, and as a legal extern to Judge James E. Boasberg of the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

Linked authors

McDermott Will & Emery (Washington)
McDermott Will & Emery (Washington)
McDermott Will & Emery (Washington)
McDermott Will & Emery (Washington)

Articles

740 Bulletin

Gregory E. Heltzer, Matt Evola The US FTC imposes a $3.5 million civil penalty from a retail fuel station operator and its affiliate for violation of a settlement agreement requiring the divesture of 10 retail gas stations (Alimentation Couche-Tard / CrossAmeria)

13

The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently extracted a $3.5 million civil penalty from two companies involved in a gas station merger. The FTC asserts the companies violated their settlement agreement with the government, which required the divestment of 10 gas stations within 120 days from (...)

Matt Evola, Joel R. Grosberg The US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upholds a district Court decision finding a merger in the video distribution sector unlikely to harm competition (AT&T / Time Warner)

454

“[T]here is no need to opine on the proper legal standards for evaluating vertical mergers because, on appeal, neither party challenges the legal standards the district court applied.” —U.S. Circuit Judge Judith W. Rogers, United States v. AT&T Inc. Antitrust practitioners and business (...)

Matt Evola The US District Court for the Northern District of California denies a motion for class certification for a proposed class of indirect purchasers of lithium ion batteries (Lithium Ion Batteries)

34

Indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in a lithium ion battery suit was denied for failing to show concrete evidence linking increased input costs to increased end-product prices; theoretical inference is not enough. What happened: The US District Court for the Northern (...)

Matt Evola, Stefan M. Meisner The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upholds dismissal of an antitrust suit where a jury verdict in a parallel case found no patent infringement (Casacade Computer / RPX / Samsung)

38

What Happened: Wading into the merging streams of antitrust and patents, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld dismissal of an antitrust suit where a jury verdict in a parallel case found no patent infringement. Cascades Computer Innovation, LLC v. RPX Corp. and Samsung (...)

Send a message