Bryan Gant is an antitrust litigator whose practice focuses on identifying creative solutions to entrenched problems. His practice has included litigation and counseling across a range of industries, including the financial services, credit reporting, pharmaceutical, cybersecurity, and petroleum industries. He has particular knowledge of the intersection of antitrust and intellectual property.
Bryan's knowledge and experience span a wide range of issues, including "reverse payment" settlements of patent disputes, rebating practices, group boycotts, product innovation and product retirement (so-called "product hopping"), price-fixing, fraudulent procurement of patents and other misconduct before the US Patent & Trademark Office, sham litigation, sham petitioning of the FDA, product bundling, and other antitrust theories.
He was named a "Rising Star" by Law360, "Recommended" in The Legal 500, US, and a "Future Leader" in Who's Who Legal: Competition Future Leaders.
Bryan has regularly published articles regarding the interplay between antitrust and intellectual property, including in the Harvard Negotiation Law Review. He is a member of the Antitrust Section of the American Bar Association and the Antitrust Committee of the New York City Bar Association. He has taught antitrust at Baruch College, a school within the City University of New York.
Representative cases include the following:
Representing a leading credit reporting agency in connection with antitrust claims based on its agreements with a supplier.
Representing a financial clearing firm in connection with antitrust claims based on the January 2021 "Short Squeeze."
Representing Pfizer in monopolization and restraint of trade cases involving allegations of unlawful "reverse payment" settlements as well as claims of fraud on the United States Patent and Trademark Office, including with respect to Lipitor, the best-selling drug of all time, and Effexor XR.
Represented Gilead, a leading manufacturer of HIV medications, in connection with allegations of unlawful agreements with joint venture partners and unlawful "reverse payment" settlement agreements.
Represented a leading French chemical manufacturer in connection with antitrust claims based on allegedly restrictive supply agreements with a pharmaceutical manufacturer.
Represented a generic pharmaceutical manufacturer against allegations of price-fixing, in what some commentators have called the largest price-fixing case in the history of the United States.
Represented Pfizer in a case involving allegations of exclusive dealing and unfair bundling practices, among other allegations.
Represented a leading cybersecurity firm against allegations of a group boycott brought by a cybersecurity testing company.
Represented Allergan, a leading pharmaceutical manufacturer, in monopolization and restraint of trade cases involving allegations of unlawful "reverse payment" settlements as well as claims of "product hopping" and fraud on the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Represented a leading pharmaceutical manufacturer in a case involving the introduction of new pharmaceutical products, which some have dubbed "product hopping."
Represented Allergan, a leading pharmaceutical manufacturer, in a case involving alleged "product hopping"; obtained First Circuit review of the class certification and ultimately achieved de-certification of the class.
Represented a leading vaccines manufacturer in a case involving bundling practices in the vaccines market.
Represented OPEC in a putative class action alleging price fixing of petroleum products.
Represented a leading pharmaceutical manufacturer in industry-wide litigation brought by a secondary wholesaler, alleging violations of the Sherman Act. The action involved many of the largest pharmaceutical manufacturers and wholesalers.
Represented a leading credit reporting agency in an action brought by the dominant provider of consumer credit risk scoring services against the three major US credit reporting agencies. The action included claims under the antitrust, trademark and false advertising laws. White & Case obtained dismissal of most of the plaintiff's claims at summary judgment, and a jury verdict completely in our client's favor on the remaining claims.
Represented a major pharmaceuticals manufacturer in a monopolization case involving allegations of fraud on the United States Patent and Trademark Office and obtained successful resolution on the eve of trial.
Represented a major pharmaceutical manufacturer in restraint of trade and monopolization claims arising from a competitor's exclusive supply agreement.
"Sacrifice and Recoupment" in the Antitrust Analysis of Patent Settlements: Actavis through the Lens of Brooke Group, Aspen Skiing, and Trinko, 10 Am. U. Bus. L. Rev. 235 (2021)
Patents Are Not Probabilities: Refuting the Probabilistic Patent Theory, 20 Chi.-Kent. J. Intell. Prop. 299 (2021)
Misguided Sensipar Ruling Threatens Patent Settlements, Law360 (Dec. 11, 2020)
Understanding Actavis: How Courts Misinterpret FTC v. Actavis, Inc., and How to Get It Right, 22 Harv. Neg. L.R. 111 (Fall 2016)
"European Union Blocks Merger of NYSE Euronext and Deutsche Bӧrse AG," The Exchange newsletter, published by the Insurance and Financial Services Committee of the ABA Antitrust Section (Fall 2012 issue) (co-authored with S. Lynn Diamond)
Contributor to Antitrust Law Developments and annual updates
Bryan Gant was named a "Litigator of the Week" by Global Competition Review for securing reversal of class certification in the Asacol® product-hopping litigation.
Rising Star, Law 360, 2015
Recommended, The Legal 500, US, 2015