Peter Boyle focuses his practice on antitrust litigation and counseling matters, in particular, antitrust issues relating to intellectual property, distribution matters and trade associations. He has substantial experience litigating private treble damages actions under both federal and state antitrust laws. Mr. Boyle has handled numerous complex litigation matters implicating the overlap between the antitrust and intellectual property laws, including antitrust and economic issues arising in patent cases, such as antitrust counterclaims, misuse defenses and patent damages claims. Several of these cases required not only a reconciliation of the tensions between the IP and antitrust laws but also a sophisticated analysis of how other bodies of law and regulatory schemes, such as FDA laws and regulations, affect competition in the relevant industries.
In addition to his litigation practice, Mr. Boyle also represents clients in connection with government investigations, including antitrust merger review and civil non-merger matters. He has represented clients before the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice in connection with merger matters, including multinational and consummated mergers and investigations into alleged anticompetitive practices, and U.S. Department of Justice civil investigative demands relating to third-party payers’ contracts with health care providers. Mr. Boyle also has substantial experience counseling clients on gun-jumping and pre-merger integration planning issues in connection with large merger matters. He has represented clients in criminal antitrust matters and related internal investigations. Mr. Boyle has represented clients in litigation and government investigation matters in the telecommunications, financial services, health care, pharmaceutical and transportation industries, among others. Mr. Boyle has been recognized by the prestigious 2009 Legal 500 US in the area of Antitrust law. He has been named a Washington, D.C. “Super Lawyer” in 2018 and the five years immediately preceding for Antitrust Litigation and a “Top 100 Washington, D.C. Super Lawyer” in 2016 by Super Lawyers magazine.
Represented a pharmaceutical company before FTC regarding antitrust review of merger with another pharmaceutical company and negotiation of consent with FTC.
Defended AT&T in an antitrust class action against allegations that it and other wireless carriers colluded, in violation of the antitrust laws, to deprive content providers from receiving payment for their works by all agreeing not to implement technologies that would prevent P2P file sharing. The court granted a motion to dismiss all defendants from the action with prejudice.
Successfully represented a large maker of electronic test, measurement and monitoring equipment in an antitrust and business tort action in the Central District of California. The suit, which involved claims of price fixing and monopolization of post-production motion picture editing and deceptive advertising and marketing of a film editing computer system, was settled on terms favorable to our client.
Represented nine states and the District of Columbia in a remedy phase of government antitrust action against an international software company.
Represented TALX Corp. in connection with an antitrust enforcement action brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) challenging a series of consummated mergers between and among Unemployment Claims Management vendors. We successfully negotiated a highly unusual Consent Order with the FTC, which required our client only to waive certain contractual rights for a limited period of time and which avoided the more common remedy in these types of actions – divestiture of assets.
Represented a restaurant franchisor in defending against antitrust action alleging, among other things, vertical price fixing and Robinson-Patman Act claims. The court ruled for our client on all claims prior to trial.
Served as antitrust counsel to BellSouth in its acquisition by AT&T.
Persuaded the Department of Justice not to take any action against a financial institution for alleged violations of fair lending laws despite a referral to the DOJ by the FDIC.
Insights View All
Fordham University School of Law, J.D. (1993)
Swarthmore College, B.A., Economics and Psychology (1988)
District of Columbia (1995)
New York (1994)
New Jersey (1994)
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
American Bar Association, Antitrust Law Section, Litigation Section, Member
Fordham Law Review, Notes and Articles Editor (1992-1993)
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.