Asim Varma is actively involved in the firm’s representation of the Federal Housing Finance Agency in complex litigation in multiple federal and state courts. Her antitrust practice 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
Federal Housing Finance Agency
- Ms. Varma currently represents 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. Representative cases include:
- Oakland County v. Federal Housing Finance Agency, 716 F.3d 935 (6th Cir. 2013) Prevailed before the Sixth Circuit in suits challenging the application of certain federal statutory tax exemptions to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
- Herron v. Fannie Mae, 857 F.Supp.2d 87 (D.D.C. 2012); Prevailed in suit that alleged Fannie Mae during FHFA’s conservatorship was a government actor for constitutional purposes.
- County of Sonoma v. Federal Housing Finance Agency, 710 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2013); Town of Babylon v. Federal Housing Finance Agency, 699 F.3d 221 (2d. Cir. 2012); Leon Cnty., Fla v. FHFA, 700 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2012). Prevailed in suits that challenged FHFA's ability as conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to direct those Enterprises not to purchase PACE loans (aimed at financing energy-efficient home improvements) on the ground that FHFA believed those loans were too risky.
- Roche Molecular Systems in direct purchaser class action alleging sham litigation and Walker Process fraud in enforcement of patent covering the enzyme Taq.
- Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. and Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc. in obtaining dismissal with prejudice a qui tam case in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. U.S.ex rel. Promega v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc., et al.
- Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. in defending 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. Applera Corp. and Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. v. MJ Research,Inc.
- Wyeth (formerly American Home Products) in successfully obtaining summary judgment in class actions challenging managed care rebate contracts as unlawful exclusive dealing and monopolization. J.B.D.L. Corp. v. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., Inc. (S.D.Ohio 2005), affirmed on appeal by Sixth Circuit.
- Philip Morris USA in successfully obtaining summary judgment in this exclusive dealing case challenging a retail distribution and incentive program involving promotional payments in exchange for near exclusive shelf space allocations. 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).
- Xerox Corporation in precedent-setting litigation concerning the right of patent and copyright owners to refuse to license to competitors. In re Independent Service Organizations Antitrust Litigation, 203 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
"A Blueprint for Successful Cross-Industry Collaboration
" The Second National Accountable Care Organization Congress, Los Angeles, CA, November 2, 2011
"Deposing an Econometrics Expert
" ABA Committee on Economics, February 25, 2008