Jeff Weinberger is a partner in the Los Angeles firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson. Mr. Weinberger's practice consists principally of antitrust and intellectual property litigation in trial and appellate courts. He has been lead counsel in a number of landmark private and government antitrust cases and patent cases. He has extensive court and jury trial experience, having tried antitrust, patent and other complex business cases for both corporate defendants and corporate plaintiffs in state and federal courts. In addition, he has argued numerous appeals before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and other federal appellate courts. Most recently, Mr. Weinberger argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of respondents in a closely watched case at the intersection of antitrust and patent law regarding pharmaceutical patent settlements.
Mr. Weinberger is a past Chair of the Section of Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law, State Bar of California, and a past President of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers of Southern California. He has served as Program Chair for the State Bar Antitrust and Unfair Competition Section's annual Golden State Antitrust Institute, and the Association of Business Trial Lawyer's Annual Seminar. He has lectured on numerous panels, including CEB's annual Federal Practice Institute, the ABTL's Judicial College, the Golden State Institute Antitrust Seminar, the Conference Board Annual Antitrust Seminar, and the California State Court Appellate Judge's Conference, and the USC Intellectual Property Law Institute.
Mr. Weinberger has been named in Best Lawyers of America, and as a Southern California Super Lawyer in the practice area of Antitrust Litigation, for a number of years. In 2016, the National Law Journal recognized him as an “Antitrust Trailblazer.” In 2011, he was recognized as a BTI Client Service All Star for outstanding client service, outstanding results and legal skills. Mr. Weinberger has been ranked repeatedly as a leading antitrust litigator by Chambers USA. He has also been recognized by LMG Life Sciences as a life science star for litigation involving drug formulation and generic drugs.
- Represented AbbVie, Inc. in FTC v. Actavis, in which U.S. Supreme Court applied a rule of reason framework for so called reverse payment pharmaceutical patent settlements, rejecting the FTC’s proposed rule of presumptive illegality.
- Represented AbbVie in multiple class action and competitor litigation including alleged predatory pricing of HIV drugs.
- Obtained Ninth Circuit opinion reversing district court and finding no antitrust violation in indirect purchaser class action
- Obtained defense verdict at jury trial on antitrust claims of competitor seeking $1.7 billion in damages. Recognized by Daily Journal as one of the top verdicts of 2011.
- Represented Abbott Laboratories in government investigation and multi-district civil class action litigation alleging that settlement of patent litigation violated state and federal antitrust laws.
- Obtained precedential decision from Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejecting per se rule and articulating standard for analysis of patent settlements under antitrust laws.
- Obtained appellate decision vacating district court’s certification of class of direct purchasers.
- Obtained defense verdict at jury trial on all claims of non settling defendant, affirmed by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a decision cited by legal publication Law 360 as one of 2009’s major decisions in antitrust law.
- Obtained summary judgment for Abbott Laboratories in antitrust suit challenging long term contract for sale of blood screening products.
- Obtained summary judgment, affirmed by Fourth Circuit, for Abbott Laboratories in action by competitor alleging that exclusive supply agreement violated Sherman Act.
- Secured jury verdict for Abbott Laboratories in action alleging monopolization of the immuno-diagnostics market.
- Obtained summary judgment for Abbott Laboratories, affirmed by the Ninth Circuit, in action challenging certain marketing programs as tying arrangements.
- Represented Brighton Collectibles (formerly Leegin Creative Leather Products) in federal and state court resale price maintenance cases. On remand from the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Leegin v. PSKS, Inc., obtained dismissal of PSKS complaint, affirmed by Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
- Represented Alliance Entertainment Company in claim alleging attempted monopolization of on-line music encyclopedia company. Case voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff for no consideration after conclusion of discovery.
- Represented Salmon Brothers in government investigations and class actions alleging industry-wide NASDAQ stock price fixing conspiracy. Case settled.
- Represented Hugo Neu Corporation in government investigation of alleged price fixing in scrap metal industry. DOJ declined to bring charges.
- Obtained dismissal for TRW Inc. in action alleging it violated antitrust laws by engaging in baseless trade secret litigation against a competitor.
- Obtained judgment after trial of patent infringement and validity in favor of Takeda Pharmaceuticals against three generic companies seeking to market a generic version of its drug Dexilant®.
- Obtained judgment of dismissal of patent filed by Bayer Corp. in District of Massachusetts alleging that Abbott’s largest product, Humira®, infringed its patents.
- Obtained preliminary injunctions for Abbott Laboratories prohibiting four generic companies from selling generic versions of BIAXIN XL, three of which have been affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
- Defended Abbott Laboratories in patent litigation against Novartis in the District of Delaware, involving Abbott’s cyclosporin pharmaceutical product, Gengraf. Obtained judgment of non infringement after jury trial, which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
- Obtained award for Abbott Laboratories in arbitration of licensing dispute concerning calculation of royalties for HIV diagnostic tests. Abbott prevailed against licensor on all issues after hearing before three arbitration panels of the International Court of Arbitration in Paris, France.
- Obtained reversal by Federal Circuit for Vysis Inc. of adverse jury verdict finding patents for DNA based diagnostic tests non-infringed and invalid. Federal Circuit held that district court lacked subject jurisdiction to determine claim by licensee in good standing.