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 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 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 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 July 9, 2021, Judge Leonard P. Stark of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted defendant’s motion to dismiss antitrust claims brought by an application (“app”) developer against one of the world’s largest technology companies for failing to adequately allege that requiring apps to offer a defendant-specific log-in function harmed competition.  Blix Inc. v. Apple, Inc., C.A. No. 19-1869-LPS (D. Del. July 9, 2021).

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).
 

On April 13, 2020, Judge Reed O’Connor of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ monopolization claim based on plaintiffs’ failure to present substantial evidence that fraud on the Patent Office and subsequent sham litigation were a material cause of plaintiffs’ alleged lost profits.  Chandler et al v. Phoenix Services LLC, 19-cv-00014 (N.D. Tex.  April 13, 2020).  With regard to plaintiffs’ claims for fees and costs expended in defending the sham litigation, the Court found that these claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
 

On September 11, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a panel consisting of Judges Robert D. Sack, Debra Ann Livingston and Denny Chin, affirmed in part, reversed in part and vacated in part a lower court’s decision in an antitrust action related to contracts for a travel technology platform.  US Airways, Inc., for American v. Sabre Holdings Corporation, No. 17-960 (2d Cir. Sept. 11, 2019).  The Second Circuit held that the district court had erred in failing to find the relevant market to be two-sided as a matter of law.  The case was remanded for a new trial on the substantive question of whether certain contractual provisions in the business agreements between the parties were unlawful restraints of trade in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.

On September 5, 2019, Judge Kenneth Ripple, writing for a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, partially reversed a lower court’s dismissal of antitrust claims alleging that two brewers conspired to restrict a competitor’s exports of beer to Ontario, Canada.  Mountain Crest SRL, LLC v. Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV, No. 18-2327, 2019 WL 4198809 (7th Cir. Sept. 5, 2019).  The Seventh Circuit held that agreements with a Canadian government-controlled entity (the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, or “LCBO”) were immune from antitrust scrutiny under the act of state doctrine.  However, the Court held that claims of an alleged conspiracy between competitors to strong-arm the LCBO into entering into the agreements did not implicate the act of state doctrine and were improperly dismissed. 

On May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed a Ninth Circuit decision reversing a California District Court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ antitrust claims on grounds that plaintiffs could not sue defendant because they were not direct purchasers from defendant.  The 5-4 majority opinion written by Justice Kavanaugh held that plaintiffs—owners of mobile phones produced and sold by defendant—were direct purchasers because they bought applications directly from defendant’s application store.  Thus, as injured buyers under Section 4 of the Clayton Act, plaintiffs were not barred from suing defendant on claims that defendant monopolized the retail market for the sale of its phone applications and exploited this position to overcharge consumers.  Apple Inc. v. Pepper, No. 17-204 (U.S. May 13, 2019).

​
On March 18, 2019, Judge Leonard P. Stark of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware dismissed allegations of predatory pricing in the “prosumer” drones market by DJI Technology Co., Ltd. and DJI Europe B.V. (collectively “DJI”).  SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. v. Autel Robotics USA LLC, No. 16-706-LPS (D. Del. Mar. 18, 2019).  The Court ruled in favor of the DJI plaintiffs, who were defendants in the antitrust counterclaims in the suit, finding that defendants Autel Robotics USA LLC and Autel Aerial Technology Co., Ltd. (collectively “Autel”) did not allege sufficient facts for a plausible predatory pricing claim.  In particular, the Court found that Autel failed to show that DJI’s prices were below cost.

On February 26, 2019, a panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of the government’s request for a permanent injunction against the merger of AT&T and Time Warner. The opinion by Judge Judith Rodgers, joined by Judges Robert Wilkins and David Sentelle, rejected the government’s argument that the district court misunderstood and misapplied economic principles and erroneously disregarded testimony by key government witnesses. United States v. AT&T, Inc., Docket No. 1:17-cv-02511 (D.C. Cir. 2019).

On February 8, 2019, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court and reinstated a jury verdict that found a cigar manufacturer liable for attempted monopolization under Section Two of the Sherman Act for various actions it took or refused to take in connection a contract manufacturing relationship with a competitor.  Trendsettah USA, Inc. v. Swisher Int’l, Inc., No. 16-56823 (9th Cir. Feb. 8, 2019).  The decision is notable in allowing the imposition of Sherman Act liability for conduct that amounted largely to alleged breaches of, and a refusal to renew, a supply contract, and illustrates that potential claims under Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 (1985), still pose litigation risks for firms with significant market shares that terminate profitable relationships with their competitors. 

On November 28, 2018, Judge Marco A. Hernández of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, on remand from the Ninth Circuit, reversed its prior grant of a motion to dismiss and held that plaintiff — which brought antitrust conspiracy claims against a non-profit corporation made up of 549 member colleges — sufficiently demonstrated antitrust injury by alleging harm to the member colleges.  CollegeNET, Inc. v. The Common Application, Inc., No. 3:14-CV-00771-HZ (D. Or. Nov. 28, 2018).

On September 15, 2017, Judge James E. Gritzner of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa granted a motion to dismiss antitrust claims filed against PepsiCo Inc. and its bottler-distributor subsidiary by an independent bottling company.  Mahaska Bottling Co. v. PepsiCo Inc., No. 4:16-cv-00114-JEG (S.D. Iowa Sept. 15, 2017).  In so doing, Judge Gritzner rejected the bottler’s proffered “price squeeze” theory and its other allegations of exclusionary conduct under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, as well as its proffered market definition, and found that Mahaska had failed to allege harm to competition or, relatedly, antitrust injury.  The Court also dismissed claims brought under the Robinson-Patman Act and Iowa state antitrust statutes.  While this case does not break new ground, it is useful in demonstrating again the difficulties that a distributor faces in asserting antitrust claims against a supplier that the distributor believes is seeking to end the relationship, even with unusual “in perpetuity” exclusive arrangement at issue here.     

Read more