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 101 - 120 of 120


American Bioscience v. Bristol-Myers

Citation Number: CV-00-08577 WMB
Amicus brief before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California regarding a proposed settlement between American Bioscience, Inc. (ABI) and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. regarding the listing of a patent purportedly covering the cancer drug Taxol on the Food and Drug Administration’s Orange Book. The brief advises the court that, because the Commission had just initiated an investigation of the conduct of ABI and Bristol, the Commission was not taking a position with regard to appropriateness of listing the patent. The brief further explains the potential consequences of the proposed settlement on generic entry and the potential harm to consumers of delaying such entry. The brief expresses concern that the judicial finding that the settlement contemplates — that the patent meets the statutory requirements for listing in the Orange Book — will prejudice parties who may later challenge the listing. The brief requests the court to consider the ramifications for generic entry and the pendency of the Commission’s investigation before entering the order proposed by the parties.

Armstrong Surgical Center, Inc., Petitioner v. Armsrong County Memorial Hospital, et al.

Citation Number: 99-905

Amicus brief for the United States and the Federal Trade Commission urging denial of Supreme Court review in a case raising the issue whether misrepresentations to state agency, in the course of petitioning activity, precludes a claim of immunity from antitrust liability.

Nynex Corporation, et al., Petitioners v. Discon, Incorporated

Citation Number: 96-1570
Amicus brief for the United States and the Federal Trade Commission, urging denial of Supreme Court review in a case raising issue whether seller can maintain antitrust action based on a conspiracy between a rival seller and a single buyer, a regulated monopolist, to raise prices to the monopolist's customers by circumventing regulatory constraints.

State Oil Co. v. Khan

Citation Number: No. 96-871
Federal Court: Supreme Court of the United States

Amicus brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission addressing whether maximum resale price maintenance should be illegal per se.


Citation Number: 09-3854-cv
Amicus brief filed in the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, at the invitation of the Court concerning issues presented by an appeal in an ethylene oxide supply contract dispute between INEOS Americas LLC and The Dow Chemical Company. The brief discusses important public interests in promoting competition and consumer welfare that the Commission sought to advance in the merger proceedings stemming from The Dow Chemical Company’s 2001 acquisition of Union Carbide Company. Dow’s divestiture of its ethanolamines business to INEOS was part of the merger remedy required by the Commission in that case, and ethylene oxide is a key feedstock for that business. While taking no position on the ultimate disposition of the contract law issues before the Court, including that of specific performance, the Commission addresses the merger enforcement context in which the supply contract under dispute arose. The Commission states that, to the extent the Court deems public interest considerations pertinent to the issues before it, those interests would be served by a contract remedy that will ensure that INEOS has access to supplies of ethylene oxide that will promote its ability to remain an active and dynamic competitor.

Allen and Sharon Schneider v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc. and Citicorp

Citation Number: CV 97-837 (NG)(CLP)
Federal Court: Eastern District of New York

Amicus brief objecting to a proposed settlement that called for consumers to be compensated with coupons for $100 off their next new mortgage or refinancing within the next two years in a case involving allegations that Citicorp violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The FTC argued it is extremely doubtful that the case satisfied the legal requirements for class certification, that the coupons were worth much less than their face value, and that the proposed counsel fee appears excessive in light of the likely low value of the settlement.

Edward H. Phillips v. AWH Corporation

Citation Number: 03-1269, 1286
Amicus Brief of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission addressing the proper methodology for construing the claims of a patent. This brief was filed in response to an order of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit taking the case en banc and inviting the government to submit its views on the questions of the en banc order. The brief argues that in construing patent claims a court should primarily rely on a patent’s intrinsic evidence (its description of the invention and its prosecution history) rather than dictionaries and other external sources. This approach is more likely to result in claim constructions that are closer to those used by the Patent Office in issuing patents and that reflect the inventions as described and enabled.