607 14th Street, NW Suite 900, Washington, DC USA 20005
Christina Fahmy focuses her practice on private antitrust litigation, government investigations, and antitrust counseling in several areas, including pricing and distribution issues. She helps clients across many industries understand the impact of the antitrust laws on their businesses, and craft practical solutions to achieve their objectives while minimizing compliance risk.
Sandoz Inc. et al. v. United Therapeutics Corp., et al, 3:19-cv-10170 (D.N.J.). Defended medical device company from claims it had conspired with innovator to exclude generic competitor through the use of an exclusive supply agreement. Achieved favorable settlement after defeating motion for preliminary injunction.
Sykes v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina, 15-CVS-3136 (N.C. Bus. Ct.). Defended a Blue Cross plan against a putative class action of chiropractors who alleged that the plan colluded with providers to reduce prices and restrict access to care. Won two rounds of motions to dismiss, as well as a subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Currently representing an industry trade association of large innovator pharmaceutical companies in a variety of matters related to competitor collaboration, including benchmarking, best practices exchange, and development of forms, templates, and other solutions for industry use. Most recently, drafted and negotiated necessary legal agreements for a patient-level data sharing arrangement to allow sharing pseudonymized or anonymized COVID-19 data to advance research into both vaccines and treatments.
Currently providing antitrust & privacy support for a collective of data controllers for a clinical trial investigator platform and a registry of investigator contact and profile information designed to facilitate recruitment for clinical trials.
In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation, 09–1967 (N.D. Cal.). Defended collegiate trademark licensor against claims it had conspired with both the NCAA and EA Sports to infringe on and fix prices for student-athletes’ names, images, and likenesses. Achieved favorable settlement for client after multiple years of litigation and extensive discovery.
Persuaded FTC to clear a previously-blocked hospital merger by successfully asserting a failing firm defense.
Defended credit reporting firm in extensive FCRA investigation, and negotiated down both the scope of the subsequent consent and reduced damages by a factor of 10.
Represented trademark licensor in DOJ investigation related to quality management initiative. Developed economic and factual evidence sufficient to persuade the agency to close investigation after eighteen months without taking any further action against the company.
Represent an industry trade association and certification body in appeals of denials of certification.
Represent several manufacturer clients with respect to pricing and distribution issues, including Colgate and MAP policies, Robinson-Patman act issues, and other distribution concerns.
Insights View All
University of Pennsylvania Law School J.D. (2004) cum laude
Georgetown University BSFS (2001) cum laude
District of Columbia (2005)
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.