Amicus Briefs

When a court considers a case whose outcome may affect consumers or competition, the FTC may file a “friend of the court” brief to provide information that can help the court make its decision in a way that protects consumers or promotes competition. To find a specific FTC brief, use the filters on this page.

Displaying 61 - 80 of 107

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc.

Citation Number: 04-1186
Date:

In this amicus brief in support of Teva’s combined petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc, the Commission argues that the court erred in affirming the district court’s dismissal of Teva’s complaint in this Hatch-Waxman Act case. The brief argues that the court applied the wrong test to assess jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act. The court only considered the likelihood that Teva would face a patent infringement suit, but failed to take account of the injury Teva will suffer. The brief argues that Teva will face injury even in the absence of a patent infringement suit because the FDA cannot approve Teva’s generic sertraline hydrochloride drug unless Teva can obtain a court decision regarding Pfizer’s patent.

Empagran, S.A. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Ltd.

Citation Number: 01-7115
Federal Court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Date:

Joint brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, as amici curiae, addressing the proper application of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act. This brief is in response to an order issued by the D.C. Circuit, which called for supplemental briefing regarding what action that court should take upon remand of the case to it by the Supreme Court. At issue is whether there is jurisdiction to proceed on the so-called “alternative theory” of liability described by the Supreme Court. The brief argues that, in lieu of remanding the case to the district court, the D.C. Circuit should hold that the “alternative theory” is legally insufficient to establish jurisdiction, and that the plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed.

Ashby v. Farmers Group, Inc

Citation Number: 04-35394
Federal Court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Date:

FTC amicus brief arguing that the district court erred in its interpretation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act when it held that an insurance company cannot take “adverse action” against a consumer, as that term is defined in the FCRA in connection with an initial offer of insurance. The brief points out that the district court’s interpretation of the Act is at odds with the most natural reading of the statutory language, as well as with both the central purpose and legislative history of the FCRA.

American Bankers Ass’n v. Lockyer

Citation Number: 04-16334
Federal Court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Date:

Joint amicus brief of the Federal Trade Commission, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the National Credit Union Administration, arguing that the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act preempts provisions of a California statute.

Spano v. SAFECO Insurance Co

Citation Number: 04-35313
Federal Court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Date:

The Commission argued that the district court erred in its interpretation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act when it held that an insurance company cannot take “adverse action” against a consumer, as that term is defined in the FCRA in connection with an initial offer of insurance. The brief points out that the district court’s interpretation of the Act is at odds with the most natural reading of the statutory language, as well as with both the central purpose and legislative history of the FCRA.

Andrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Kroger Co

Citation Number: 03-779
Federal Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Date:

Joint brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, urging the Court to deny a writ of certiorari in this case, regarding private patent litigation and the legal standards applicable to “reverse payment” patent litigation settlements in the Hatch-Waxman context.

Cole v. U.S. Capital, Inc. et al.

Citation Number: 03-3331
Federal Court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Date:

In this amicus brief, filed at the invitation of the court, the FTC argues that, although the Fair Credit Reporting Act permits a business to obtain a consumer report if it provides the consumer with a firm offer of credit or insurance, the law is not satisfied if the business provides the consumer with an offer that is merely a sham. Accordingly, the brief contends that the district court erred in holding that plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted when her complaint alleged that the offer in the ad she received was a sham. The brief also argues that the court erred when it dismissed, without addressing, plaintiff's allegation that statutorily-mandated disclosures, which were made in tiny type, were not clear and conspicuous.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc.

Citation Number: 04-1186
Date:

The Commission argues that the district court erred by dismissing Teva's complaint against Pfizer in this Hatch-Waxman Act case. Teva sought a declaratory judgment that its generic version of sertraline hydrochloride would not infringe a patent held by Pfizer (or that the patent was invalid). The brief argues that the court applied the wrong test to assess jurisdiction. It failed to take account of the fact that, unless Teva can obtain a court decision regarding Pfizer's patent, the FDA cannot give Teva approval to market its generic drug until 180 days after the first generic applicant (Ivax Pharmaceuticals) enters the market with its version. The brief also explains that the district court’s holding will leave subsequent generic applicants (such as Teva) powerless to prevent brand-name manufacturers and first generic applicants from greatly delaying other generic manufacturers from entering the market.

Willes v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co

Citation Number: 03-35848
Federal Court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Date:

The Commission argued that the district court erred in holding that an insurance company cannot take “adverse action” against a consumer, as that term is defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act, in connection with an initial offer of insurance. The brief disputes the district court’s holding, pursuant to which there would be no adverse action, even if, as a result information in a consumer report, the insurance company offered only a higher price or more onerous terms than it would have offered if the information in the report had been more favorable. The brief explains that the district court’s analysis is based on a misinterpretation of both the Act’s wording and its legislative history.

F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., et al. v. Empagran S.A.

Citation Number: 03-724
Federal Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Date:

Joint brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, as amici curiae, supporting petitioner Hoffmann-La Roche, and arguing that, under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act, federal courts lack jurisdiction when a foreign plaintiff's claimed injury from an alleged antitrust conspiracy does not arise from the effects of that conspiracy on U.S. commerce. The brief also argues that prudential considerations support the conclusion that such actions are not properly brought in United States courts.

Rausch v. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.

Citation Number: 03-35695
Federal Court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Date:

The Commission argued that the district court erred in holding that an insurance company does not take “adverse action” against a consumer, as that term is defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act, when, based on information in a consumer report, the insurance company sets a price for insurance that is higher than the price it would have charged if the information had been more favorable. The brief explains that the district court misinterpreted both the wording of the Act and its legislative history when it held that there can be no “increase” in the price that an insurance company charges to a new customer regardless of the price that other customers are charged.

Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass’n

Citation Number: 03-5245
Federal Court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Date:

In this amicus brief, the FTC argues that a district court erred in holding that, because a private association of secondary schools had been deemed a state actor for constitutional purposes, it was protected by the antitrust state action doctrine. The brief explains that, in the antitrust context, “state action” narrowly refers only to actions undertaken in conformity with a policy clearly articulated by the sovereign state itself. The brief further explains that the alleged anticompetitive conduct here is not protected by the state action doctrine, because the state has not clearly articulated any such policy to displace competition.

Pruitt v. Kaufman and Broad Home Corp. et al.

Citation Number: 5:03-CV-021
Federal Court: Southern District of Texas
Date:

Amicus brief, requested by the Court, addressing whether a private party has standing as a third party beneficiary to enforce a consent decree between the Federal Trade Commission and the defendant. The amicus brief explains that Supreme Court precedent, and subsequent cases interpreting it, have either foreclosed the possibility of third-party enforcement of government consent decrees or have at least limited third party enforcement to circumstances that are not present in this case. The brief also describes the Federal Trade Commission’s continuing efforts to address the matters pending between the Commission and the defendant.

On Review of UPL Advisory Opinion

Citation Number: 2003-2, No. S03U1451
Date:

Joint amicus brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, urging the Georgia Supreme Court to reject a ruling by the Georgia State Bar Standing Committee on the Unlicensed Practice of Law, which had determined that real estate closings must be conducted by licensed attorneys. The brief points out that allowing non-lawyers to conduct closings is likely to lower prices and increase consumer choice, and that there is no indication that such lay closings will harm consumers in any way.

Haese v. H & R Block, Inc.,

Citation Number: CV-96-423
Date:

Amicus brief addressing proposed class action settlement, advising the court of the Commission's views on the difficulty of assessing the value of class relief based on coupons, and the need to evaluate the high level of attorney's fees requested here ($49 million) in light of the actual benefit to consumers and the likely strength of the consumers' claims.

Dee-K Enterprises, Inc. v. Heveafil Sdn. Bhd.

Citation Number: 02-649
Federal Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Date:

Joint amicus brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, urging the Court to deny the petition for certiorari. The brief explains that, although the court of appeals applied the wrong test in concluding that the Sherman Act did not apply to a global price-fixing conspiracy, the case is not appropriate for plenary review in light of the insufficient development of the record below and the absence of any conflict in the circuits on the questions presented.

Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP

Citation Number: 02-682
Federal Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Date:

Joint amicus brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, urging reversal of the court of appeals' ruling, which had permitted a case to go forward under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, based on "essential facilities" and "monopoly leveraging" theories, despite the failure of plaintiff to allege exclusionary conduct under general Section 2 principles.

Empagran S.A. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Ltd.

Citation Number: 01-7115
Federal Court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Date:

Joint brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, as amici curiae, addressing the proper application of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act where a foreign plaintiff's claimed injury from an alleged antitrust conspiracy does not arise from the effects of that conspiracy on U.S. commerce.

Pages