Antitrust/Competition

Asim Varma is a partner in the litigation and antitrust practice groups. She focuses on civil litigation and government investigations raising significant antitrust and intellectual property issues affecting clients in pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and high technology industries.

Antitrust/Competition Representative Matters

• Currently represent the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in complex litigation presenting claims against the Agency, and in actions implicating the rights of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
• Roche Molecular Systems and Hoffmann La Roche Inc.: Lead counsel on a number of antitrust matters defending the validity and licensing of patents included in Roche's polymerase chain reaction (PCR) patent portfolio.
  • Counsel for Roche Molecular Systems in direct purchaser class action alleging sham litigation and Walker Process fraud in enforcement of patent covering the enzyme Taq.
  • Counsel for Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. and Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc. in U.S. ex rel. Promega v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc., et al., a qui tam case in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Case dismissed with prejudice in September 2004.
  • Counsel for Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. in Applera Corp. and Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. v. MJ Research, Inc. defended against numerous antitrust counterclaims in patent infringement litigation brought in the District of Connecticut including unlawful tying, price fixing, patent misuse, package licensing, sham litigation, Walker Process fraud and monopolization.
• Wyeth (formerly American Home Products) counsel for Wyeth in class actions challenging managed care rebate contracts as unlawful exclusive dealing and monopolization. See J.B.D.L. Corp. v. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., Inc., No. 1:01-CV-704, 1:03-CV-781, 2005 WL 1396940 at *16 (S.D.Ohio, June 13, 2005) (granting summary judgment for the defendant), affirmed on appeal by Sixth Circuit.
• Philip Morris USA: defended Philip Morris in exclusive dealing case challenging retail distribution and incentive program. See R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Philip Morris Inc., 199 F. Supp. 2d 362 (M.D.N.C. 2002), aff'd per curiam, 67 Fed. Appx. 810 (4th Cir. 2003) (granting summary judgment for defendant in antitrust challenge to promotional payments in exchange for near exclusive shelf space allocations).
• Xerox Corporation: defended Xerox in precedent-setting litigation concerning the right of patent and copyright owners to refuse to license to competitors.See In re Independent Service Organizations Antitrust Litigation, 203 F.3d 1322, (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied 121 S.Ct. 1077 (2001).