This site makes use of Javascript, please enable your web browser to allow Javascript. Thank you.
Laura  Shores

Laura Shores

Complex Commercial Litigation Department

Washington, DC
T: +1 202 682 3577
F: +1 202 682 3580

icon Download vCard

Legal Services


  • University of Chicago Law School
    JD, 1988
  • Smith College
    BA, cum laude, 1985

Bar Admission(s)

  • District of Columbia


  • Section of Antitrust Law of the American Bar Association

Laura Shores is a partner in the Antitrust Practice of the Complex Commercial Litigation Department in Kaye Scholer’s Washington, DC office. Laura is a trial lawyer with more than 20 years of experience in complex civil litigation, including antitrust and securities fraud matters.

Laura’s antitrust litigation experience includes a variety of actions brought under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and its state law counterparts, as well as Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. She has tried antitrust claims brought by federal regulators and plaintiffs in private treble-damages suits and represents clients in a variety of industries, with particular focus on the pharmaceutical industry. In a landmark case brought by the Federal Trade Commission against Schering-Plough Corporation challenging its settlement of patent litigation with manufacturers of generic drugs, Laura prevailed after a two-month administrative hearing. She recently secured the dismissal of a class action against a major pharmaceutical company based on an alleged “reverse payment” settlement of pharmaceutical patent litigation. Laura was recognized in 2015 as one of the Top 100 Trial Lawyers and Top 250 Women in Litigation by Benchmark Litigation. She was also named as a “Life Science Star” in Euromoney’s LMG Life Sciences Guide for 2014 and 2015, and is a nominee for the 2015 LMG Life Sciences Award for Antitrust Litigator of the Year.

Laura’s practice also focuses on white-collar criminal defense and internal investigations. She has represented corporations and individuals in criminal investigations and prosecutions across a broad range of substantive areas, including antitrust, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, money laundering, accounting and securities fraud and procurement fraud.

Laura has also defended clients in complex commercial litigation matters in federal and state courts, as well as in matters before US and international arbitration tribunals.

Representative Matters

  • Major pharmaceutical company in putative antitrust class action alleging that defendants procured patent by fraud and engaged in sham patent litigation. United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund, et al. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., et al.
  • Major pharmaceutical company in case brought by state attorney general alleging that defendants violated state law by engaging in sham patent litigation with prospective generic competitors. State of Louisiana v. Pfizer Inc. and Warner Lambert LLC.
  • Two Japanese executives of a maritime shipping company in an antitrust criminal investigation of the international car shipping industry. Car Carriers Criminal Cartel Investigation.
  • Senior executive and primary individual target in antitrust criminal investigation of auto parts manufacturer. Matter concluded with no charges filed against client. Auto Parts Criminal Cartel Investigation.
  • Major pharmaceutical company in antitrust class actions challenging a patent litigation settlement agreement between branded and generic pharmaceutical companies. In re Lamictal Antitrust Litigation.
  • GSK in a case brought by Santa Clara County on behalf of all California citizens alleging violations of California’s false advertising law. County of Santa Clara v. GlaxoSmithKline.
  • Prominent attorney charged with money laundering and wire fraud. After a five-year investigation, the government voluntarily dismissed the indictment. United States v. Kuehne.
  • Microprocessor manufacturer in monopolization cases brought under Section 2 of the Sherman Act and in parallel proceedings before antitrust authorities in the European Union, Japan, South Korea and the Federal Trade Commission. Advanced Microsystems Inc. v. Intel Corporation; In re Intel Corp. Microprocessor Litigation.
  • Major pharmaceutical company in a landmark case brought by the Federal Trade Commission challenging the settlement of patent cases brought against manufacturers of generic drugs. After a two-month hearing, the administrative law judge ruled in the client’s favor, and the FTC was unsuccessful on appeal. Schering-Plough v. Federal Trade Commission.
  • Pharmaceutical company, its CEO and its board of directors, in successfully obtaining dismissal with prejudice of federal securities class actions filed against alleging violations of SEC Regulation FD and various federal securities laws. In re Schering-Plough Corporation Securities Litigation.
  • Schering-Plough, its CEO, and its board of directors in the dismissal of a state class action alleging common law claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty. Lurie v. Schering-Plough Corp.
  • Manufacturer of orthodontic appliances in a case alleging monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The case resulted in a directed verdict on behalf of the client at the close of the plaintiff’s case. Viazis, et al. v. GAC International, Inc.
  • Senior Clinton administration official in connection with three indictments brought by independent counsel Kenneth Starr, as well as in related investigations before Congress. The district court dismissed the independent counsel’s second indictment, holding that it violated the client’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. This holding was challenged on appeal and in the US Supreme Court, which, in a case of first impression, upheld the dismissal. United States v. Hubbell.
  • Civil rights organizations, including the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, serving as lead trial counsel, in a federal voting rights case against Florida state officials in the days before the 2004 presidential election. Jacksonville Coalition for Voter Protection, et al. v. Hood.
  • Newly registered minority voters seeking to enforce a consent decree in a 23-year-old voting rights case in the District of New Jersey. After a preliminary injunction hearing, the court enforced the decree. The case was litigated all the way to the US Supreme Court in the days before, and including, Election Day in November 2004. Democratic National Committee v. Republican National Committee.

Speaking Engagements & Publications

  •  “Third Circuit’s King Drug Decision Holds No-AG Provision Can Constitute Actionable Payment,” with Karin Garvey, Rory Greiss, Claudia Higgins and Saul Morgenstern, Kaye Scholer LLP Client Alert (June 30, 2015).
  • “Second Circuit Holds That Coercive ‘Product Hopping’ Likely Violates Antitrust Law,” with Saul Morgenstern and Matthew Gibbs, Kaye Scholer LLP Client Alert (June 1, 2015).
  • “Out of the Tunnel and Into the Light: Emerging From A Compliance Failure,” with Saul Morgenstern and Z. Scott, InsideCounsel (May 26, 2015).
  • In re Modafinil Litigation Finds No ‘Threshold Burden’ in Reverse Payment Suit,” with Karin Garvey, Kaye Scholer LLP Client Alert (January 30, 2015).
  • “Is Any Consideration a ‘Payment’? The Continuing Struggle over How to Interpret FTC v. Actavis,” Bloomberg BNA, Antitrust & Trade Regulation Report, with Karin Garvey (January 9, 2015).
  • “Another District Court Holds That ‘Reverse Payment’ Means Cash Under FTC v. Actavis,” with Saul Morgenstern, Karin Garvey and Paul Andrews, Kaye Scholer LLP Client Alert (September 8, 2014).
  • “District Court Precludes Defense Based on Strength of Patent in FTC v. Cephalon “Reverse Payment” Litigation,” with Karin Garvey and Saul Morgenstern, Kaye Scholer LLP Client Alert (July 31, 2014).
  • “How the Supreme Court’s Reverse Payments Decision May Affect General Patent Litigation,” InsideCounsel (July 16, 2014).
  • “Foreign Nationals May Face Increased Risk of Extradition to US for Antitrust Violations,” with Philip Giordano, David Hibey, Saul Morgenstern, Jennifer Patterson and Gregory Wallance, Kaye Scholer LLP Client Alert (April 7, 2014).
  • “District Court Holds That Under FTC v. Actavis, “Pay for Delay” Means Money,” with Joseph Kohn, Kaye Scholer LLP Client Alert (January 30, 2014).
  • “China Steps Up Antitrust Enforcement on Foreign Companies,” Kaye Scholer LLP Emerging Trends (October 2, 2013).
  • “2012 Criminal Antitrust Developments,” Pepper Hamilton Annual Antitrust Developments Update CLE Event, Philadelphia (December 13, 2012).
  • “FTC Suffers Another Blow in its Attack on ‘Pay-For-Delay’ Settlements,” Competition News (April 3, 2012).
  • “Pharmaceutical Patent Life Extension Strategies: Are REMS Programs Next?” Antitrust Health Care Chronicle (March 28, 2012).
  • “The Starting Point: Negotiating ‘Volume of Commerce’ with the Antitrust Division,” ABA Cartel and Criminal Practice Committee Newsletter (February 15, 2012).
  • “Criminal Antitrust Violations: What to Do and When,” Pepper Hamilton Annual Antitrust Developments Update CLE Event, Philadelphia (December 8, 2011).
  • “Monthly Antitrust Update: September 2011,” ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Corporate Counseling Committee (webinar) (October 7, 2011).
  • “Preparing to Commercialize: Lessons from Recent Enforcement Activities,” 2011 Annual Association of Bioscience Financial Officers Conference (June 1, 2011).
  • “Ethics and Business Conduct - Can your Program Withstand government Scrutiny?” ABA Federal Procurement Institute, Annapolis, MD (March 4, 2011).

Before joining the firm, Laura practiced as a partner in the Antitrust and Competition Commercial Litigation and White Collar Litigation and Investigation practices at Pepper Hamilton LLP, and in the Antitrust and Global Litigation group for Howrey LLP. Laura served as a Judicial Clerk to Hon. Robert S. Vance, US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from 1988 to 1989. She is a member of the Section of Antitrust Law of the American Bar Association.