On January 10, 2025, Judge Kenneth D. Bell of the United States Court for the Western District of North Carolina denied NASCAR’s motion to dismiss stock car racing team 23XI Racing’s (“plaintiff”) monopolization case against NASCAR (“defendant”).  2311 Racing LLC, et al. v. Nat. Ass’n for Stock Car Auto Racing, LLC, et al., 3:24-cv-00886 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 10, 2025).

On November 8, 2024, United States District Judge Frank D. Whitney of the Western District of North Carolina denied without prejudice a motion for preliminary injunction sought by two stock car teams against the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing (“NASCAR”). 2311 Racing LLC, et al. v. National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, LLC, et al., No. 3:24-CV-00886-FDW-SCR, 2024 WL 4729485 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 8, 2024). The injunction would have prevented NASCAR from enforcing a legal release provision in its 2025 NASCAR Cup Series Charter Member Agreements (“Charter Agreement” or “Agreement”) and allowed plaintiffs to compete as de facto charter teams without abandoning antitrust claims that are pending before the district court. The Court denied the injunction, finding that plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm necessary to warrant relief.

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 22, 2024, Judge Harvey Bartle III of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied a motion to compel defendants to provide information concerning the “subjective beliefs” of their decisionmakers concerning allegedly meritless patent litigation.  King Drug Co. of Florence v. Abbott Lab’ys, No. CV 19-3565, 2024 WL 3904045 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 22, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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).

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 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 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 August 10, 2021, the Second Circuit, in a 2-1 decision,  affirmed the dismissal—for the second time—of price-fixing claims against a pair of Chinese vitamin C exporters, after the Supreme Court had remanded it for further consideration.  Animal Science Prods., et al., v. Hebei Welcome Pharma. Co. Ltd., et al., 13-4791-cv (2nd Cir. Aug 10, 2021).  Following the Supreme Court’s directive to “carefully consider but not conclusively defer” to submissions from the Chinese Ministry of Commerce, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit agreed that the case should, nevertheless, still be dismissed on international comity grounds.  This decision—involving the Chinese government’s first appearance in a U.S. court—was unusual for an antitrust case in that there was no real dispute that the alleged anticompetitive conduct occurred.  Instead, the question centered on “whether Chinese law required the Chinese sellers’ conduct.”

On July 26, 2021, Chief Judge Freda L. Wolfson of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed “sham litigation” monopolization counterclaims against a pharmaceutical patent holder, finding that the patent holder conducted a reasonable investigation before filing the underlying infringement suit and did not unreasonably delay the proceedings before determining that the counterclaim plaintiff’s generic substitute for the patent holder’s drug did not infringe its patent and voluntarily dismissing its infringement claims.  Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al. v. Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc., et al., No. CV 18-1994 (FLW), 2021 WL 3144897 (D.N.J. July 26, 2021).  Because the generic manufacturer could not establish that the patent holder’s infringement lawsuit was either objectively or subjectively baseless, the Court granted summary judgment for the patent holder.

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 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 July 5, 2020, Chief Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division denied Sharp Corporation’s (“Sharp Japan”) motion to dismiss claims that Sharp Japan colluded with other technology companies in refusing to license their standard essential patents (“SEPs”) on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms.  Continental Auto. Sys., Inc. v. Avanci, LLC, No. 3:19-cv-02933-M (N.D. Ill. July 5, 2020). 
 

On June 8, 2020, Judge Manish Shah of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) granted AbbVie’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Sherman Act claims because the allegations fell “short of alleging the kind of competitive harm remedied by antitrust law.”  In re Humira (Adalimumab) Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:19-cv-01873 (N.D. Il. 2020).  Plaintiffs are two separate classes of indirect purchasers in a consolidated class action alleging that pharmaceutical manufacturer AbbVie, in concert with competing biosimilar manufacturers (Amgen, Samsung Bioepis, and Sandoz), violated §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by improperly exercising monopoly power over the market for the drug Adalimumab.
 

On April 14, 2020, Judge Timothy C. Batten Sr. of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied a motion to dismiss Shearman Act claims against defendant CargoSprint, LLC and its founder.  PayCargo, LLC v. CargoSprint, LLC, No. 3:19-CV-85-TCB, 2020 WL 1861928 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 14, 2020).  Plaintiff, a competing provider of electronic payment management services to freight and cargo carriers and shippers, alleged that defendants violated antitrust laws by tying the use of one of their products to the purchase of another.  Judge Batten denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, rejecting defendants’ argument that plaintiff’s amended complaint contained only conclusory allegations regarding the tying arrangement.
 

On February 13, 2020, Judge Terry Hatter of the United States District Court for the Central District of California issued an order denying Defendant Global Music Rights LLC (GMR)’s motion to dismiss antitrust claims based on its licensing practices, but striking all claims for restitution or disgorgement of profits. Radio Music License Committee Inc. v. Global Music Rights LLC, 19-cv-03957 (C.D. Cal. February 13, 2020).
 

On Monday, January 27, 2020, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “the Commission”) and the New York Attorney General filed suit in federal court in the Southern District of New York against Martin Shkreli and Vyera Pharmaceuticals based on allegations of market monopolization.  FTC v. Vyera Pharmaceuticals, LLC, No. 1:20-cv-00706 (S.D.N.Y. filed Jan. 27, 2020).  The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Denise L. Cote.  Shkreli, commonly referred to in the media as “pharma bro,” gained notoriety for behavior that led to his federal incarceration for securities fraud in 2017.  The Complaint alleges that Shkreli and others engaged in an unlawful scheme to block low-cost generic competition and maintain a monopoly on Daraprim, an essential drug used to treat the potentially fatal parasitic infection toxoplasmosis, in violation of the Sherman Act and New York state law.  The case is a notable example of close collaboration between federal antitrust enforcers and a state attorney general’s office.
 

On January 17, 2020, District Judge John D. Bates of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied defendant’s motion to dismiss an FTC complaint alleging monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act against a health information technology company (the “Company”), rejecting the Company’s arguments that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, and finding that FTC had adequately pleaded a Section 2 violation.  FTC v. Surescripts LLC, 19-1090 (D.D.C. Jan. 17, 2020).
 

On October 8, 2019, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York Ronnie Abrams dismissed all but one claim in a putative antitrust class action brought against Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd. and various Takeda entities, as well as generic manufacturers Teva Pharmaceuticals, Ranbaxy Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Actavis PLC, and Mylan Inc.  In re: Actos Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:15-cv-03278 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 8, 2019).  The class complaint alleged that Takeda illegally conspired with the other defendants to delay generic competition for its blockbuster diabetes drug Actos through a series of patent settlement agreements, which granted the other defendants non-exclusive licenses to produce generic Actos at a future date prior to the expiration of Takeda’s patents.  The Court dismissed these conspiracy claims, finding that plaintiffs’ “truly novel” theory for why the settlement agreements between Takeda and the other defendants violated the antitrust laws lacked “even a colorable basis” of support.  The Court’s decision left in place one remaining claim against Takeda for monopolization.
 

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 April 19, 2019, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Middle District of Pennsylvania’s dismissal of monopsony, antitrust conspiracy, and race discrimination claims by two plaintiff cable installer contractors against defendant, a dominant provider of internet services.  Cable Line, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications of Pennsylvania, Inc., No. 18-2316 (3d Cir. Apr. 19, 2019).  On the antitrust claims, the Third Circuit held that plaintiffs did not adequately allege facts to show that they suffered antitrust injury from the allegedly anticompetitive conduct, that defendant held monopsony power and used it to exclude other buyers of cable installation services, or that defendant had any agreement with the installers it chose as part of its RFP process to restrain trade in the cable installation market.  The Third Circuit did, however, suggest that plaintiffs consider a retooled complaint alleging that defendant ties cable installation to its cable services, which may cause higher installation prices and reduce downstream competition.

On March 29, 2019, Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied a motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiff Orion Telescopes & Binoculars (“Orion”) had sufficiently pled that defendants Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co., Ltd. (“Ningbo”) and Celestron, LLC (“Celestron”) had conspired to divide the market for low- to medium-end telescopes and block a competing manufacturer’s acquisition that would have enabled expansion and broader supply-side competition.  Optronic Technologies, Inc., v. Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co., Ltd., No. 16-CV-6370 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2019).  Judge Davila cited plaintiff’s specific allegations of:  (a) a division among competitors of the low-end (to Ningbo) and high-end (to Celestron) telescope markets (facilitated in part by a transfer of intellectual property to Ningbo); and (b) Celestron’s advance knowledge of Ningbo’s interest in the merger.  Celestron settled prior to the litigation, but Orion and Ningbo will continue into discovery.

​
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 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 December 12, 2018, Judge William H. Orrick of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motion to dismiss on a variety of trade secret, antitrust, and copyright claims.  Teradata Corporation, et al., v. SAP SE, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-03670 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2018).  The Court agreed with defendants that the trade secret claims required additional specificity, but found the remaining claims, including those based on copyright and antitrust grounds, to be sufficiently pled.

On November 6, 2018, Judge Lucy H. Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California sided with the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and granted a motion for partial summary judgment, holding that contractual commitments it agreed to in the standards-setting process required the defendant chipmaker to license certain essential patents to competing modem chip suppliers.  Federal Trade Comm’n v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 17-CV-00220 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2018).

On October 30, 2018, Judge Madeline C. Arleo of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey declined to certify a proposed consumer class in litigation accusing a pharmaceutical manufacturer (the “Company”) of maintaining a monopoly for two of its drugs. Judge Arleo held that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, a class cannot be certified when a non-trivial portion of class members were not injured, absent some “reasonable and workable plan” to segregate those members from the rest of the class. In re Thalomid and Revlimid Antitrust Litig., No. 2:14-cv-06997, at *26, *29 (D.N.J. Oct. 30, 2018) (“Opinion”). In so holding, Judge Arleo relied heavily on the First Circuit’s recent decision in In re Asacol Antitrust Litig., which reversed a district court’s approval of a class on similar grounds. No. 18-1065, 2018 WL 4958856, at *11 (1st Cir. Oct. 15, 2018); https://www.lit-antitrust.shearman.com/first-circuit-reverses-class-certification-based.

On October 15, 2018, the United Stated Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in an opinion by Judge William J. Kayatta, reversed a district court’s certification of a class of indirect purchasers of the drug Asacol, holding that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, a class cannot be certified when a non-trivial portion of class members were not injured in fact, absent some “reasonable and workable plan” to segregate those members from the rest of the class.  In re Asacol Antitrust Litig., No. 18-1065, 2018 WL 4958856, at *11 (1st Cir. Oct. 15, 2018). 

On June 29, 2018, Judge Harvey Bartle III of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a decision ruling that AbbVie Inc., Abbott Laboratories, and Unimed Pharmaceuticals LLC (together, “AbbVie”), along with Besins Healthcare, Inc. (“Besins”), violated Section 5(a) of the FTC Act by engaging in sham litigation to delay entry of competition to its testosterone replacement drug, and ordered disgorgement of $448 million. Federal Trade Commission v. AbbVie Inc., No. 2:14-cv-05151-HB (E.D. Pa. June 29, 2018). This represents the largest monetary award that the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has achieved in a litigated antitrust case.

On April 19, 2018, Judge Beth L. Freeman of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied defendants’ motion to dismiss antitrust claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, rejecting defense arguments that the complaint alleged no more than permissible unilateral conduct by a legitimate joint venture. 

Read more

On March 27, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld a March 2017 order by Judge Sanchez of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissing an attempted monopolization claim asserted by the Philadelphia Taxi Association (“PTA”) and 80 individual taxicab companies against a leading ride-hailing company.  Phila. Taxi Ass’n v. Uber Tech., Inc., No. 17-1871 (3d Cir. Mar. 27, 2018).  The Court held that plaintiffs had failed to state a claim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act and had failed to allege antitrust injury.
 

On February 9, 2018, Judge Mark A. Kearney of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware denied in part Armstrong World Industries Inc.’s (“Armstrong”) motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by rival ceiling tile manufacturer Roxul USA Inc. (“Roxul”), finding that Roxul alleged facts plausibly demonstrating monopolization and attempted monopolization in violation of Sherman Act Section 2, and concerted action in restraint of trade in violation of Sherman Act Section 1 and Clayton Act Section 3.  However, Judge Kearney granted Armstrong’s motion to dismiss Roxul’s claims relating to the sale of ceiling tiles in Canada because Roxul failed to allege how reduced competition in Canada had a “direct, substantial and reasonably foreseeable effect” on U.S. commerce, as required by the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (“FTAIA”). 

Read more

On October 17, 2017, Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed monopolization claims brought by the Attorneys General of several states against Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Ltd. (“RBH”) premised on an alleged “product hopping” scheme designed to prevent or delay less expensive generic versions of the drug Suboxone from entering the market.  In re Suboxone (Buphrenorphine and Naloxone) Antitrust Litigation, No. 13-MD-2445, 2017 WL 4642285 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 17, 2017).  In so doing, the Court held that the mere fact that two subsidiaries are owned by a common parent is not sufficient either to consolidate the alleged market power of the two firms for the purpose of assessing monopoly power or to attribute the actions of one subsidiary to the other in evaluating allegations of exclusionary conduct. 

Read more