Robert Reznick

Partner

Washington, D.C.


Read full biography at www.orrick.com
Rob Reznick is a partner in the firm’s Complex Litigation & Dispute Resolution Group, with a focus on the representation of pharmaceutical and other life sciences companies. He is Co-Chair of the Firm's Life Sciences Practice.

His practice includes the representation of drug manufacturers and other commercial entities in industry-wide multi-plaintiff and class action litigation involving alleged price-fixing and other collusive conduct, claims of fraud, violations of RICO, Walker Process patent-based antitrust claims, and in enforcement actions against the sale of illegally imported and diverted drugs and medical devices. Rob also represents drug industry clients in connection with Federal Trade Commission investigations and enforcement actions, and served as co-lead counsel to a major international drug manufacturer in the defense of nationwide litigation challenging industry pricing practices. Rob is also outside counsel to and Corporate Secretary of, the Pharmaceutical Security Institute, Inc., the brand name pharmaceutical industry’s not-for-profit trade organization dedicated to the fight against pharmaceutical counterfeiting.

Outside the pharmaceutical industry, Rob's principal work has been in defending against RICO, False Claims Act, antitrust, and other claims based on federal statutes. Much of this work has involved U.S. litigation against foreign businesses. He is Managing Editor of The World in US Courts: Orrick's Quarterly Review of Decisions Applying US Law to Global Business and Cross-Border Activities.

Rob also has extensive experience representing clients in product safety matters before the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Prior to joining Orrick, Rob was a partner in Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, where he served as co-chair of the firm’s Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Industry and Product Safety Practice Groups. He was also the Washington, D.C., Office Pro Bono Coordinator.

Array

Posts by: Robert Reznick

U.S. Supreme Court Limits Jurisdictions Where Non-U.S. Businesses May Be Sued

United States Supreme Court building U.S. SUPREME COURT LIMITS JURISDICTIONS WHERE NON-U.S. BUSINESSES MAY BE SUED

On June 19, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California,[1] a multi-plaintiff State product liability case in which the Court rejected a loose standard for personal jurisdiction for claims brought by out-of-State plaintiffs. Though questions as to its impact remain, BMS surely will signal the end to multi-State plaintiffs’ efforts to centralize claims in the State court of their choosing. Even beyond this, the decision has potentially significant implications for State class actions and perhaps even federal antitrust cases.

READ MORE

Can a Foreign Defendant’s Conduct Satisfy the FTAIA But Not the Due Process Clause?

Global Trade, word cloud concept on white background Can a Foreign Defendant’s Conduct Satisfy the FTAIA But Not the Due Process Clause

In Sullivan v. Barclays PLC,[1] Judge P. Kevin Castel, of the Southern District of New York, raised an interesting point regarding the relationship between the viability of antitrust claims subject to the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvement Act (FTAIA) and constitutional requirements for personal jurisdiction: The FTAIA “arguably may apply a less-exacting standard than the due process threshold to exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant.”[2]  In other words, even though the standard for the FTAIA might be met to allow an antitrust claim to proceed against a foreign defendant, the court nonetheless might not be able to assert personal jurisdiction.  The question whether the FTAIA should be read more strictly than has been the case to conform to due process requirements, or that foreign defendants should be more diligent in challenging personal jurisdiction, are interesting ones that warrant further analysis.

READ MORE

District Court Follows Motorola Mobility to Apply FTAIA and Indirect Purchaser Doctrine to Dismiss U.S. Parent’s Price-Fixing Claims Based on Its Foreign Subsidiary’s Purchases

District Court Follows Motorola Mobility to Apply FTAIA and Indirect Purchaser Doctrine to Dismiss U.S. Parent’s Price-Fixing Claims Based on Its Foreign Subsidiary’s Purchases In re Refrigerant Compressors Antitrust Litigation Image of Abstract hand a young man is opening a refrigerator door

The Seventh Circuit’s decision in Motorola Mobility v. AU Optronics[1]–which blocked a U.S. parent’s Sherman Act claim based on its foreign subsidiary’s purchases of a price-fixed product–continues to reverberate throughout federal district courts.  A district court in the Sixth Circuit recently followed Motorola Mobility to dismiss a U.S. company’s price-fixing claims based on its foreign subsidiary’s purchases of allegedly price-fixed components that were incorporated abroad into finished goods that the subsidiary then shipped to the United States. In re Refrigerant Compressors Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:09-md-02042, 2016 WL 6138600 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 21, 2016). The district court’s decision demonstrates that, post-Motorola Mobility, defendants have strong arguments in some circuits under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (“FTAIA”)[2] and Illinois Brick[3] to defeat a U.S. parent’s price-fixing claims based on purchases by its overseas subsidiary, especially where that subsidiary is not wholly-owned.

READ MORE

Third Circuit Jump-starts Class Action, Holding that an Indirect Purchaser Can Bring Federal Antitrust Claims as a Direct Purchaser Based on Assignment of the Claims Even Without Consideration

Antitrust Class Action Truck Transmissions

On September 15, 2016, the Third Circuit jump-started a federal antitrust class action involving truck transmissions, holding that a direct purchaser’s assignment of its federal antitrust claims to an indirect purchaser is valid as long as the assignment was written and express—even if there was no consideration for the assignment. The Third Circuit also held that a proposed class representative’s motion to intervene is presumptively timely if made before class certification.  Wallach, et al. v. Eaton Corp., et al., No. 15-3320 (Sept. 15, 2016).

READ MORE

Third Circuit Rules that Antitrust Standing Is Properly Challenged Under Rule 12(b)(6) for Failure to State a Claim, Not Under Rule 12(b)(1) for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

On September 7, 2016, the Third Circuit ruled that a district court erred in granting a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss federal antitrust claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because the court conflated the analyses for Article III standing and antitrust standing. Hartig Drug Co. Inc. v. Senju Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., No. 15-3289 (3d Cir. Sept. 7, 2016).

Hartig Drug Company Inc. (“Hartig”), an Iowa-based drug store chain, sued pharmaceutical manufacturers alleging that they suppressed competition for medicated eyedrops through a variety of means, which resulted in higher prices for the eyedrops. Hartig purchased the eyedrops from a distributor, AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation (“Amerisource”), which purchased the eyedrops from the manufacturers. Hartig’s claim as an indirect purchaser from the defendant manufacturers was barred by Illinois Brick v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), so it alleged that Amerisource had assigned its claim to Hartwig, which enable Hartwig to sue as a direct purchaser.

The manufacturers filed a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and also a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. For the Rule 12(b)(1) motion, defendants submitted Amerisource’s Distribution Services Agreement (“DSA”) with one of the manufacturers—which was not mentioned in Hartwig’s complaint—to argue that an anti-assignment clause in the DSA prohibited Amerisource from assigning its claim without the defendant’s consent. The District Court accepted that argument and granted the Rule 12(b)(1) motion on the ground that Hartig was actually suing as an indirect purchaser and not as a direct purchaser because the assignment was invalid.

On appeal, several retailers filed an amicus brief arguing that defendant’s anti-assignment argument reached only the issue of antitrust standing, which is different from Article III standing, and the district court erred in ruling that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction. The Third Circuit agreed.

READ MORE

Antitrust Implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in RJR Nabisco v. European Community

For the past several years, plaintiffs and defendants in international price-fixing cases have battled over the extraterritorial application of the Sherman Act in light of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982 (“FTAIA”), 15 U.S.C. § 6a, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s seminal decision in F. Hoffman-LaRoche Ltd. v. Empagran, S.A., 542 U.S. 155 (2004).  Although the Supreme Court passed on an opportunity to clarify the scope of the FTAIA when it denied petitions for certiorari following decisions in Hsuing v. United States, 778 F.3d 738 (9th Cir. 2014), as amended (Jan. 30, 2015), and Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., 775 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2014), as amended (Jan. 12, 2015),[1] the Court’s decision in RJR Nabisco v. European Community—which addresses the extraterritorial application of the federal RICO statute—may provide some insight into how it views antitrust claims based on foreign injuries under the FTAIA.

READ MORE

Supreme Court’s Request for Views of the United States on Cert. Petition in Lamictal “Reverse-Payment” Case Flags Potential Issues for Practitioners

On Monday, June 7, the Supreme Court requested the views of the Solicitor General in connection with a petition for certiorari filed by the U.S. subsidiary of GlaxoSmithKline plc (“GSK”) in SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. King Drug Co. of Florence, No. 15-1055.  The Supreme Court’s request seems less directed to rethinking its seminal ruling in FTC v. Actavis on the lawfulness of “reverse-payment” settlements of Hatch-Waxman cases than to a concern that, in some specific ways, its decision may have created some unintended consequences.

READ MORE

Quo Vadis FTC: What Does the Commission’s Complaint Against Endo Pharmaceuticals and Others Say About the Future of Post-Actavis Hatch-Waxman Litigation and Reverse Payment Settlements?

This alert, the title of which is adapted from a March 30, 2016 FTC Staff Attorney blog post[1], considers the FTC’s first lawsuit challenging a so-called “no-AG” agreement.  No-AG agreements are components of Hatch-Waxman patent infringement litigation settlements in which the brand manufacturer agrees, expressly or through exclusive licenses, not to launch an “Authorized Generic” for a period of time after the generic manufacturer’s entry.  The FTC’s complaint attacks two such settlements that Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. and the Japan-based patent holder for one of the relevant patents reached with generic manufacturers Watson Laboratories (and Watson’s current owner, Allergan plc) and Impax Laboratories, to settle Hatch-Waxman litigation involving Endo’s two most important products—the pain relievers Opana ER® and Lidoderm®.[2]  The FTC’s complaint, and its simultaneous settlement with the Japanese patent holder and its U.S. subsidiary (collectively, “Teikoku”), are less a window into the FTC’s thinking, which at this point is hardly unpredictable, than they are into its litigation strategy and what drug manufacturers need to consider regarding potential FTC and private actions as they continue to wrestle with the many issues that remain unresolved post-Actavis[3].

READ MORE

1st Circ. Charts Conservative Post-Actavis Course In Loestrin

Members of Orrick’s Life Sciences practice with experience addressing pharmaceutical industry antitrust and IP issues recently published an article analyzing the recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in In re Loestrin, No. 14-2071 (1st Cir. Feb. 22, 2016).  In that decision—only the second appellate decision applying the Supreme Court’s seminal 2013 decision in FTC v. Actavis , the First Circuit addresses a few of the antitrust issues surrounding so-called “reverse-payment” settlements of patent infringement litigation between branded and generic drug manufacturers.  To read the published article, please click here.

U.S. Supreme Court Reaffirms Prohibition on Post-Expiration Patent Royalties, and the Vitality of Stare Decisis, in the Kimble “Spider-Man” Case

On June 22, 2015, in a 6-3 decision in Kimble et al. v. Marvel Enterprises, LLC, 576 U.S. (2015), the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding in Brulotte v. Thys, 379 U.S. 29 (1964), that it is per se patent misuse for a patentee to charge royalties for the use of its patent after the patent expires.  While acknowledging the weak economic underpinnings of Brulotte, the Court relied heavily on stare decisis and Congressional inaction to overrule Brulotte in also declining to do so itself.  Although Kimble leaves Brulotte intact, the decision restates the rule of that case and provides practical guidance to avoid its prohibition on post-expiration royalties.  Critically, the Court appears to condone the collection of a full royalty for a portfolio of licenses until the last patent in the portfolio expires.  In addition, the Court’s reasoning provides guidance as to how patent licensors can draft licenses to isolate the effect of a later finding that patents conveyed under those licenses were previously exhausted.

READ MORE

Cephalon and Teva’s $1.2 Billion Consent Order with the FTC: Is it Really a Harbinger of Things to Come?

On June 17, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania approved a consent order (the “Consent Order”) between the Federal Trade Commission and defendants Cephalon, Inc. and its parent, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.,[1] resolved long-running antitrust litigation stemming from four “reverse payment” settlements of Hatch-Waxman patent infringement cases involving the branded drug Provigil®.  Pursuant to its settlement with the FTC (the “Consent Order”), Cephalon agreed to disgorge $1.2 billion and to limit the terms of any future settlements of Hatch-Waxman cases.[2]  The FTC and its Staff have celebrated and promoted the terms of the settlement as setting a new standard for resolving reverse-payment cases.  But their enthusiasm may be more wishful thinking than reality, and their speculation that the agreement may exert force on market behavior does not appear to be supported by a fair assessment of the state of the law.  First, the restrictions on Cephalon’s ability to enter into settlements of Hatch-Waxman cases exceed anything a court has ever required, and conflict with settlement terms apparently approved in the U.S. Supreme Court’s seminal reverse-payment decision, Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013).  Second, the FTC’s use of disgorgement as a remedy remains controversial and Cephalon, despite initial opposition, might have voluntarily embraced that remedy as part of a strategy to achieve a global resolution of remaining private litigation.  We write to put the Consent Order in perspective, so that industry participants can better assess its meaning.

READ MORE

“Product Hopping”: New Second Circuit Decision Addresses Antitrust Limits on Innovation and Related Marketing Activity

In late May, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued the first appellate decision addressing the pharmaceutical industry practice called by some “product hopping”—a two-step process in which a drug approaching the end of its patent term is withdrawn or made less desirable to customers so that patients will switch to a successor product with more exclusivity remaining.  In this way, drug manufacturers may seek to protect sales from generic competition.  “Product hopping” cases are often analyzed under the antitrust rules developed to assess claims of “predatory innovation” or related conduct, as exemplified by well-known cases involving Microsoft and Kodak.  In this article, just published in Law360, lawyers from Orrick’s Intellectual Property and Antitrust groups weigh in on the Second Circuit’s decision, focusing on aspects of the analysis that may not be applicable in different cases and contexts.

California Supreme Court Details Antitrust Analysis of “Reverse Payment” Patent Settlements

Last week, in In re Cipro Cases I & II, Case No. S198616, the Supreme Court of California adopted the United States Supreme Court’s application of the Rule of Reason to the antitrust analysis of so-called “reverse payment” patent settlements (and rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that settlement payments exceeding the costs of litigation or other services are per se unlawful), but also set forth a specific “structured” Rule of Reason analysis to be applied in analyzing such settlements.  A copy of the decision can be found here.

READ MORE

Clarity And Confusion: FTAIA Developments In 2014

This article originally appeared in Law360 on Jan. 16, 2015. A pdf version is available here

The Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act[1] has confounded practitioners and courts alike for years. This past year brought long-anticipated decisions from the Second (Lotes),[2] Seventh (Motorola Mobility II)[3] and Ninth (Hsiung)[4] Circuits regarding four important issues: (1) whether the FTAIA is substantive or jurisdictional; (2) the scope of the exclusion for conduct affecting “import commerce”; (3) the appropriate standard for the “domestic effects” test; and (4) the increasing importance of the “gives rise to a claim” test. This article summarizes these recent circuit court opinions and offers some thoughts about issues to watch going forward.

READ MORE

7th Circuit Decision in Motorola Mobility Holds That the FTAIA Bars a U.S. Parent’s Damages Claims Based on Its Overseas Affiliates’ Purchases of Price-fixed Products, But Does Not Bar Criminal Enforcement of the Sherman Act

​The Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6a (FTAIA), enacted in 1982, has provided ambiguous direction to courts and practitioners regarding the applicability of U.S. antitrust laws to conduct occurring wholly or partially in other countries. In Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp. et al., No. 14-8003 (7th Cir. Nov. 26, 2014) (Motorola Mobility II), the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals became the latest appellate court to weigh in on the meaning of this opaque statute, holding that purchases by a U.S. parent company’s foreign affiliate of price-fixed goods that were incorporated into products subsequently shipped to the U.S. parent did not give rise to damages claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. At the same time, however, and in an apparent reversal of direction by the same panel, the Court made clear that its decision does not preclude efforts by the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue criminal charges against foreign defendants for cartel activity relating to components of finished products sold in the United States. READ MORE