Surprising or Not: Noerr-Pennington Doctrine Protects Novartis from Two Class Action Antitrust Lawsuits

A defendant accused of violating the antitrust laws has a powerful, well-established defense, if it can prove it, of immunity based on the Noerr–Pennington doctrine.  This doctrine provides a party from immunity from antitrust liability when it petitions the government for redress under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.  United Mine Workers of Am. v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657, 669, 85 S. Ct. 1585 (1965); E.R.R. Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127, 136, 81 S. Ct. 523 (1961).  Petitioning the government for redress includes enforcing one’s intellectual property rights in court.  However, embarking on sham litigation to enforce those intellectual property rights does not count.  Nor does the defense include enforcing a patent that was obtained by fraud on the Patent Office.  Walker Process Equip., Inc. v. Food Mach. & Chem. Corp., 382 U.S. 172, 177-78, 86 S. Ct. 347, 350-51 (1965). …

Read more detail on Recent Advertising Law posts –

This entry was posted in Advertising Law and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply