On October 16, 2024, Judge David Barlow of the United States District Court for the District of Utah granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims that nine defendants (specifically, sellers, distributors, and manufacturers in the domestic mattress market, as well as a trade association for sleep-related products) conspired to undermine plaintiff’s attempt to compete to sell mattresses in violation of federal and state antitrust laws. CVB, Inc. v. Corsicana Mattress Co., et al., No. 1:20-cv-00144-DBB (D. Utah Oct. 16, 2024).

On October 3, 2024, United States District Judge Arun Subramanian refused to transfer the DOJ’s monopolization case against two companies in the live entertainment industry (“Defendants”) from the Southern District of New York to the District of Columbia. United States, et al. v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., and Ticketmaster L.L.C., No. 24-CV-3937 (AS) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2024). According to the decision, the case, which alleges violations of the state and federal antitrust laws, is insufficiently related to the consent decree governing Defendants’ 2010 merger to fall within its retention-of-jurisdiction provision. In his ruling, Judge Subramanian drew a distinction between the consent decree, which “resolved a single claim arising under Section 7 of the Clayton Act,” and DOJ’s present allegations that defendants “have violated separate legal duties” under the Sherman Act and analogous state laws.

On August 15, 2024, Judge Stephen A. Higginson of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, writing for a panel, dismissed an appeal from U.S. Anesthesia Partners (“USAP”) in its ongoing litigation against the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”).

On August 29, 2024, the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision granting summary judgment and dismissing antitrust claims by CSX Transportation, Inc. (“CSX” or “Plaintiff”)  against Norfolk Southern Railway Company (“Norfolk Southern”) and Norfolk & Portsmouth Belt Line Railroad Company (“Belt Line”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for alleged exclusionary fees, finding that CSX’s claims were untimely and could not be saved by the “continuing violation” doctrine.  CSX Transp., Inc. v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., et al., No. 23-1537 (4th Cir. 2024).

On September 5, 2024, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied Health First, Inc.’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint in a class action lawsuit alleging monopolization and anticompetitive practices in the healthcare market in Brevard County, Florida.  Powers, et al. v. Health First, Inc., No. 6:23-cv-375-JSS-RMN (M. D. Fla. Sept. 5, 2024).

On August 15, 2024, Judge Stephen A. Higginson of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, writing for a panel, dismissed an appeal from U.S. Anesthesia Partners (“USAP”) in its ongoing litigation against the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”).

On August 1, 2024, a unanimous jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California found plaintiff, a veterinary drug manufacturer, failed to allege a relevant antitrust market under Sherman Act, Section 2 and Clayton Act, Section 3 to support its claims against a rival company for allegedly restraining trade in the flea and tick treatment industry.  Because plaintiff failed on this threshold question, the jury did not need to consider any other elements of plaintiff’s claims, and the court entered a verdict in favor of defendant.  Tevra Brands LLC v. Bayer HealthCare LLC, No. 5:19-cv-04312 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2019).

On June 11, 2024, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ (United States Soccer Federation, Inc. (“U.S. Soccer”) and Major League Soccer, LLC (“MLS”)) motions for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s (North American Soccer League, LLC (“NASL”)) claim that Defendants conspired to exclude it from competing in the men’s professional soccer leagues in the U.S. and Canada in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The Court reasoned that a reasonable jury could find that Defendants acted in concert or unilaterally in applying the professional soccer league standards in a discriminatory manner and allowed that issue and Plaintiff’s monopolization claims to go forward to trial.

On June 11, 2024, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ damages claim in a lawsuit brought by the Department of Justice and eight states against a technology company alleging illegal monopolization of adtech markets. The Court, in an opinion unsealed on June 17, dismissed the damages claim as moot, finding no claim for relief remained after defendant sent the full amount of potential damages to DOJ’s offices in the form of a cashier’s check. The Court also struck plaintiffs’ demand for a jury trial, which was based solely on the claim for damages. United States of America et al. v. Google, LLC, No. 1:23-cv-108 (E.D. Va. Jun. 19, 2024).

On May 13, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the dismissal (with prejudice) of a lawsuit that alleged certain “reverse payments” made by a patent-holding pharmaceutical company to competitor generic manufacturers to settle patent infringement litigation constituted an antitrust violation under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (among others). 

On February 21, 2024, Judge Vince Chhabria of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted motions for summary judgment finding that presented evidence did not give rise to a viable refusal-to-deal claim because, even though there was evidence of a motivation to harm a competitor with the refusal, there was also evidence of a valid business justification. This ruling applies to two cases Simon and Simon, PC v. Align Tech., Inc., No. 3:20-cv-03754, 2022 WL 15523532 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 5, 2020), and Misty Snow v. Align Tech., Inc., 586 F. Supp. 3d (N.D. Cal. 2021), where plaintiffs, dental and orthodontic practices and orthodontic customers, asserted that defendant, a global medical device company who makes dental aligners under the Invisalign brand, violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act’s ban on attempts to monopolize a market.

On January 17, 2024, Judge Jeremy C. Daniel of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) denied defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings brought under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that attempted to limit the scope of discovery and recoverable damages of antitrust claims brought by plaintiff. Linet Americas Inc. v. Hill-Rom Holdings Inc. et al., No. 21 CV 6890, (N.D. Ill. Jan. 17, 2024).

On January 11, 2024, Judge Philip S. Gutierrez of the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment in a case alleging that the National Football League (“NFL”) and its member clubs conspired and entered into unlawful agreements with each other and their broadcast partners to suppress the output of certain kinds of telecasts of professional football games in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.  In re Nat’l Football League’s Sunday Ticket Antitrust Litig., No. ML 15-02668 PSG (SK), 2024 WL 168298 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2024).

On November 21, 2023, the United States Circuit Court for the Fifth Circuit vacated a district court ruling denying a motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens in a suit brought by an auto parts supplier against a global car company.  The Fifth Circuit panel, responding to a writ of mandamus, found that the lower court had erroneously relied on outdated precedent in its determination that antitrust cases are barred from dismissal on the basis of forum non conveniens.  Prevent U.S.A. Corporation v. Volkswagen AG, et al., No. 23040487 (5th. Cir. Nov. 21, 2023).

On November 3, 2023, a panel of the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of claims brought by app developers (“Plaintiffs”) against a technology company (the “Company”) for alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.¹  Coronavirus Reporter et. al., v. Apple, Inc. No. 22-15166 (9th Cir. 2023).

On August 25, 2023, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the FTC’s complaint against Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Endo”), Impax Laboratories LLC (“Impax”) and their parent companies (collectively “Appellees”) for alleged violations of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.  FTC v. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., Dkt. No. 22-05137 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 25, 2023).  The suit stemmed from a patent litigation settlement agreement in 2017, which the FTC alleged was an impermissible exclusive licensing arrangement.  The D.C. Circuit held that the FTC failed to state a claim because the complaint lacked allegations establishing that the 2017 Agreement extended beyond the rights granted to Impax under settled law and precedent.

On July 27, 2023, Judge Chad Kenney of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part Merck’s motion for summary judgment in relation to a class action alleging that direct purchasers of Merck’s mumps vaccines were overcharged as a result of Merck’s alleged unlawful monopolization of the mumps vaccine market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act and New Jersey and New York state laws.  In re Merck Mumps Vaccine Litig., No. 12-3555 (E.D. Pa. July 27, 2023).  Plaintiffs allege that Merck’s submissions to the FDA and its labels for its mumps vaccines contained false and misleading information in relation to the amount of live virus in its products.  According to plaintiffs, this led to competitors being forced to comply with unusual standards to receive FDA approval to market their products, and specifically, it precluded GSK from obtaining a license to sell its vaccine for mumps, measles and rubella (MMR vaccine) and caused plaintiffs to be overcharged.

On April 14, 2023, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a suit brought by Garth Drabinsky, an award-winning Broadway producer, against an actors’ union, the Actors’ Equity Association (“AEA”), for allegedly blacklisting him in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The Court dismissed the suit with prejudice, holding that Drabinsky’s federal antitrust claims were barred by the statutory exemption for unions. Drabinsky v. Actors’ Equity Association, No. 22-CV-8933-LGS (S.D.N.Y.).

On April 20, 2023, Judge Ricardo Martinez of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed with leave to amend a putative class action alleging that Amazon’s linking of favorable website product placement for third-party sellers with the third-party sellers’ purchases of Amazon’s fulfillment services was an unlawful tying arrangement under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Hogan v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 21-996 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 20, 2023). Plaintiffs were members of Amazon Prime, an Amazon program offering free or reduced shipping on purchases through Amazon, among other benefits, in exchange for an annual fee. Plaintiffs alleged that third-party sellers who purchase Amazon’s fulfillment services receive a “Prime Badge” and favorable product placement on Amazon’s website in the “Buy Box,” the section of the product page through which plaintiffs claimed 90% of Amazon.com consumer purchases are made.

On March 23, 2023, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington partially granted and partially denied Amazon’s motion to dismiss a putative consumer class action alleging Amazon’s policies have prevented third-party sellers from offering lower prices on other e-commerce platforms. Frame-Wilson, et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ, 2023 WL 2632513 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 23, 2023).

On April 5, 2023, Judge Mark C. Scarsi of the Central District of California dismissed with prejudice a streaming service’s antitrust counterclaims alleging that various well-known comedians and their licensing agents conspired to fix prices and attempted to monopolize the market for spoken-word comedic audio content for failure to allege facts showing either an agreement in restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act or the market power necessary to state a claim under Section 2. Yellow Rose Productions Inc. v. Pandora Media LLC, No. 2:22-cv-00809 (C.D. Cal, Apr. 5, 2023).

On March 8, 2023, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a proposed antitrust class action lawsuit alleging that social networking company (the “Company”) has a monopoly in the professional social networking market, which it protects through a barrier to entry comprising the Company’s “data centralization and aggregation, its machine learning and AI infrastructure, and the inferred data it produce[s].” Crowder et al. v. LinkedIn Corporation, No. 22-cv-00237-HSG (N.D. Cal., Mar. 8, 2023). Plaintiffs alleged the Company violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by engaging in a “monopoly broth” of anticompetitive conduct, ranging from exclusive data sharing agreements to an alleged agreement with Facebook to divide markets. Granting the motion to dismiss, the Court ruled that none of the alleged activities amounted to anticompetitive conduct, either individually or on aggregate.

On January 24, 2023, the Department of Justice, along with the Attorneys General of California, Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia, filed a civil antitrust action against Google in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.  Plaintiffs allege that Google violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by monopolizing several digital-advertising products.  These products are various software programs and exchanges used by advertisers to create ads and place them on websites, including as search results on Google.  When someone uses Google’s search engine, they are not only inundated with popular search-engine results but with relevant advertisements.  In addition to search-engine advertisements, Google’s tools are used by third-party websites to promote digital advertising.  Plaintiffs contend that website publishers rely on Google’s digital-advertising products to sell advertisements and that advertisers depend on them to purchase advertisements.

On September 19, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the operator of a hospital in Shreveport, Louisiana had failed to adequately plead Sherman Act § 1 and § 2 claims against the dominant medical provider in the Shreveport market.  BRFHH Shreveport, LLC v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, No. 21-30622 (5th Cir. Sep. 19, 2022).

On July 21, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit unanimously affirmed a district court judge’s conclusion that a prior settlement released a claim by plaintiff, a generic pharmaceutical manufacturer (the “Company”), that defendants engaged in “sham” patent litigation to block it from launching a generic version of defendants’ brand-name drug.  Perrigo Co, et al. v. AbbVie Inc, et al., No. 21-3026 (3d Cir. Jul. 21, 2022).

On July 8, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of a monopolization claim against an integrated healthcare provider, concluding that plaintiff had pled facts sufficient to support a plausible geographic market as required to establish a claim under section 2 of the Sherman Act and section 7 of the Clayton Act.  Vasquez v. Indiana Univ. Health, Inc., No. 21-3109, 2022 WL 2582368 (7th Cir. July 8, 2022).

On June 21, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a decision dismissing Plaintiff Continental Automotive Systems’ claims challenging the alleged refusal of certain standard-essential patent holders and their licensors to issue the supplier patents on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (“FRAND”) terms under Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.  Continental Automotive Sys., Inc. v. Avanci, L.L.C., No. 20-11032 (June 21, 2022).

On May 23, 2022, Judge David Barlow of the District of Utah dismissed claims against a group of mattress manufacturers who had filed antidumping petitions with federal regulators.  CVB, Inc. v. Corsicana Mattress Company, et al., No. 1:20-cv-00144 (D. Utah 2022).  Plaintiff alleged that defendants engaged in anticompetitive conduct including price fixing and interference with plaintiff’s business relationships in violation of the Sherman Act and the Utah Antitrust Act, in addition to Lanham Act and state common law claims.  The Court dismissed all claims, and in particular dismissed with prejudice those claims relating to defendants’ antidumping petitions, which it found protected under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.

On March 17, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the dismissal of an antitrust complaint brought by SmileDirectClub LLC (“SmileDirect”) against the Dental Board of California.  The complaint alleged that the Dental Board of California utilized unfounded investigations to intimidate and harass with the aim of driving SmileDirect out of the dental and orthodontia markets because of the threat that its cheaper direct-to-consumer model posed to the traditional practice of dentistry.  SmileDirectClub, LLC v. Tippins, No. 20-55735 (9th Cir. Mar. 31, 2022).

On February 28, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that an upstream auto-parts supplier lacked Article III standing to bring an antitrust suit challenging the alleged refusal of certain standard-essential patent holders and their agent to license the supplier patents on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (“FRAND”) terms.  Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc. v. Avanci, LLC et al., No. 20-11032 (5th Cir. Feb. 28, 2022).

It is widely known that the evolution to online news has been challenging for print media sources, with some estimating that as much as half of all print revenue disappearing and one fifth of U.S. newspapers closing their doors since 2007.  In recent years, the House and Senate have focused on tech giants and the role these companies play in the lives of Americans and in a variety of markets, including digital advertising.  Following a long line of congressional hearings and committee investigations, a number of antitrust complaints have been filed by the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Justice, and state Attorneys General across the country against major Big Tech companies like Facebook (now known as Meta Platforms, Inc.) and Google.  While some have been consolidated into multidistrict litigation, new cases continue to be filed by private plaintiffs.

On December 6, 2021, Judge Ronald M. Gould of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed jury verdicts against defendant-telescope manufacturers and distributors.  Optronic Technologies, Inc. v. Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co., Ltd., et al., No. 2:20-cv-15940 (9th Cir. 2021).  Plaintiff alleged that defendants conspired to fix prices on telescopes and monopolize the market in violation of the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and California antitrust and competition laws.  The Court largely affirmed the district court jury’s decisions, vacating and remanding only as to the amount of the settlement set-off.

On November 15, 2021, Judges Edith Jones, Jerry Smith, and James Haynes of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of an antitrust complaint related to Topgolf International’s (“Topgolf”) acquisition of Protracer in 2016.  The complaint alleged that Topgolf acquired a technology owned by Protracer in order to drive its competitor, SureShot Golf Ventures (“SureShot”) out of business in violation of Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.  SureShot Golf Ventures, Inc. vs. Topgolf International, Inc., 21-20132 (5^th Cir. Nov. 15, 2021).

On October 27, 2021, Judge Kevin McNulty of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed a complaint alleging that a cancer drug manufacturer engaged in sham litigation in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act and various state antitrust and consumer protection laws based on the same alleged sham litigation.  Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 19-14146 (D.N.J. Oct. 27, 2021).

On September 30, 2021, Judge Amy Totenberg of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied a utilities management company’s motion to dismiss state and federal antitrust and tortious interference claims.  Lucasys Inc. v. Powerplan, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-02987 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 2021).  Plaintiff alleges five counts of antitrust violations by defendant under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, for unlawful restraint of trade and monopoly maintenance via negative tying, the concerted refusal to deal with plaintiff and other market competitors by denying access to software and data needed to develop competing products, and de facto exclusive dealing provisions in contracts with utilities.  The Court found that plaintiff had sufficiently pled its claims at the motion to dismiss stage and declined to grant defendant’s motion to dismiss.

On September 29, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court’s order certifying a nationwide class of up to 250 million people.  The Ninth Circuit concluded that a common issue of law does not predominate because the laws of other several states apply, not just California’s Cartwright Act and Unfair Competition Law.  In re Qualcomm Antitrust Litig., No. 19-15159, 2021 WL 4448713 (9th Cir. Sept. 29, 2021).  The indirect purchaser plaintiffs are consumers who allege that Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) violated federal antitrust laws and California’s Cartwright Act and Unfair Competition Law by engaging in certain corporate policies regarding their licensing of standard essential patents (“SEPs”) and related sales of modem chips.  The Ninth Circuit held that California’s choice of law rules precluded class certification because states without an Illinois Brick repealer statute, which often authorize indirect purchasers to bring antitrust damages suits, “have a clear interest in applying their laws to class members” and to apply only California law would “allow[] California to set antitrust enforcement policy for the entire country.”

On September 10, 2021, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued her post-trial decision in Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 4:20-cv-05640-YGR (N. D. Cal. 2021).  Plaintiff claimed that defendant’s developer policies violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and the Cartwright Act, California’s analogue to the Sherman Act, as well as California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”).  The Court, in a 185-page opinion, found that plaintiff did not meet its burden to show that defendant’s policies violated the antitrust laws and denied plaintiff the broad injunction that would have required substantial changes to defendant’s App Store business.  However, the Court held that plaintiff was entitled to a limited injunction under the UCL as to defendant’s anti-steering restrictions.  The Court also granted contract damages for defendant’s counterclaims against plaintiff.

On July 19, 2021, the United State Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendant/appellee healthcare staffing firm, holding that the non-solicitation provision in defendant’s contract with plaintiff/appellant to provide traveling nurse services did not amount to a naked restraint on trade because it was ancillary to the overall pro-competitive agreement between the parties and plaintiff had not shown harm to competition.  Aya Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. AMN Healthcare, Inc., No. 20-55679, 2021 WL 3671384 (9th Cir. Aug. 19, 2021).

On June 28, 2021, Judge James E. Boasberg of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed dual enforcement actions brought by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and the attorneys general of 46 states and the District of Columbia (the “state enforcers”) against Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”).  See FTC v. Facebook, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-03590-JEB (D.D.C. June 28, 2021), ECF 73 (the “FTC Action”); State of New York et al. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-03589-JEB (D.D.C. June 28, 2021), ECF 137 (the “States’ Action”).

On May 18, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal of claims by the Academy of Allergy & Asthma in Primary Care and United Allergy Services (“plaintiffs”) that Quest Diagnostics (“Quest”) violated §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.  Acad. of Allergy & Asthma in Primary Care v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., No. 20-50179, 2021 WL 1976666 (5th Cir. May 18, 2021).  The district court originally dismissed the claims because Quest did not commit any overt acts within the four-year statute of limitations period.  On appeal, the Court found that an email from Quest’s co-conspirator referencing a meeting with a Quest employee provided sufficient evidence of an overt act to extend the statute of limitations period.

On May 13, 2021, U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the Northern District of California dismissed, with leave, to amend a monopolization claim against Google and its parent company for failure to properly define the relevant product market or to adequately plead anticompetitive conduct.  In re Google Digital Advertising Antitrust Litigation, No. 20-CV-03556-BLF (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2021).

On March 23, 2021, Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed amended antitrust claims brought by two entertainment journalists against the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (“HFPA”).  Flaa v. Hollywood Foreign Press Ass’n, No. 2:20-cv-06974-SB (C.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2021).

On March 31, 2021, Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a ten-count complaint alleging that defendant financial technology companies, Advent Software Inc. and its parent company, SS&C Technologies Holdings Inc. (collectively “defendant”), violated, inter alia, Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by refusing to renew a software license with one of its competitors and engaging in so-called “exclusive dealing arrangements” that allegedly foreclosed the competitor from the marketplace.  Arcesium, LLC v. Advent Software, Inc., 1:20-cv-04389 (MKV) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2021).  The Court found that plaintiff Arcesium LLC (“plaintiff”), a technology company that licensed defendant’s portfolio accounting software, but competed with them in providing related “post-trade solutions” (technology and services used to provide middle- and back-office support for investment funds and fund administrators), failed to adequately plead antitrust standing. 
 

On February 25, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that the American Board of Internal Medicine (“defendant”) did not violate Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act or the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”).  Kenney v. Am. Bd. of Internal Med., No. 20-1007, 2021 WL 732715 (3d Cir. Feb. 25, 2021).  Among other things, the Third Circuit found that a group of physicians (“plaintiffs”) did not plausibly allege that defendant impermissibly tied together initial physician certifications with the regular renewals of the same certifications.  These regular renewals are known as maintenance of certification (“MOC”).  The Third Circuit also found that plaintiffs did not plausibly allege that defendant utilized monopoly power to require plaintiffs to purchase MOCs.
 

On November 9, 2020, the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted defendant Outfront Media Inc.’s (“Outfront”) motion to dismiss claims that Outfront engaged in an illegal conspiracy to stifle competition and maintain “monopolistic control” over the alleged market for outdoor advertising (billboards) in Los Angeles.  Karraa v. City of Los Angeles, No. 2:20-cv-07036-SVW-AGR (C.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2020).  The Court found that plaintiffs, including rival outdoor advertising company Virtual Media Group, Inc. (“VMG”) and the ground lessors of billboard sites, did not plead facts to establish a violation of either Section 1 or Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
 

On October 9, 2020, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part Epic Games’ motion for preliminary injunction against Apple, Inc. Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc. ​, No. 4:20-cv-05640-YGR (N. D. Cal. 2020).  Plaintiff Epic Games (“Epic”) sought to reinstate its popular video game, Fortnite, to the Apple App Store and to regain its access to Apple’s developer tools.  The Court declined to reinstate Fortnite to Apple’s App Store, but ordered Apple to allow Epic’s corporate affiliates access to its developer tools.
 

On September 9, 2020, Judge Edward Chen of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed antitrust claims brought against LinkedIn by a tech startup that alleged LinkedIn exploited its monopoly power to deny the startup access to essential information it uses in providing analytics services.  hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp., No. 17-cv-03301-EMC (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2020).
 

On September 10, 2020, Chief Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed a major automotive components manufacturer’s antitrust lawsuit against a group of holders of standard-essential patents (“SEPs”) used in wireless telecommunications and their joint licensing agent Avanci LLC, rejecting claims that defendants’ patent licensing platform and practices violated, inter alia, Sections One and Two of the Sherman Act.  Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. v. Avanci, LLC, No. 3:19-cv-02933-M (N.D. Tx. Sept. 10, 2020).  In dismissing the case, the Court found that plaintiff had failed to adequately plead (1) antitrust standing, (2) an unlawful agreement to restrain trade under Section One, and (3) the anticompetitive conduct necessary to establish a violation of Section Two.  On the monopolization claim, this decision is consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s decision last month in FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., in which the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court and rejected similar Section Two challenges to Qualcomm’s licensing practices for its SEPs.  It is also consistent with the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division’s July 28, 2020 favorable business review letter addressing Avanci’s 5G patent licensing platform.
 

On August 21, 2020, Judge Rebecca Beach Smith of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia certified a class of thirty-five direct purchasers.  In Re Zetia (Ezetimibe) Antitrust Litigation, 19-cv-00014 (E.D. Va.  Aug. 21, 2020).  Plaintiffs, direct purchasers of the branded drug Zetia, alleged that defendant pharmaceutical manufacturers engaged in an unlawful reverse-payment settlement whereby the manufacturer of the branded drug Zetia agreed to pay a generic manufacturer approximately $800 million to delay its launch of a generic for Zetia for nearly five years.  Zetia is a drug that prevents cholesterol by inhibiting the buildup of plaque in arteries.  The issue before the district court was whether Rule 23 class certification was proper of a direct-purchaser class of only thirty-five members.  In finding it was, the court found it credible that many class members would not find it financially worthwhile to pursue the case on their own and that judicial economy would be best served by certification.
 

On July 13, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Central District of California’s dismissal of a suit brought by a power systems software company against three competitor corporations on grounds that plaintiff’s claims failed to adequately allege anticompetitive conduct under the Sherman Act and related state law claims.  Power Analytics Corp. v. Operation Tech., Inc. et al., No. 19-1805 (Fed. Cir. July 13, 2020).