<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
	<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
		<channel>
			<title>A&amp;O Shearman | Antitrust Blog</title>
			<link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com</link>
			<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
			<atom:link href="https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/rss/blogs" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Eighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of Seed Company Price-Fixing Allegations</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/eighth-circuit-affirms-dismissal-of-seed-company-price-fixing-allegations</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On April 6, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit declined to revive a price-fixing lawsuit brought by a proposed class of farmers against manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers of crop inputs. In re: Crop Inputs Antitrust Litigation, No. 24-3104 (8th Cir. April 6, 2026). Plaintiffs alleged defendants conspired to boycott e-commerce platforms and inflate prices through a secretive distribution process in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The appeal arose from twenty-eight similar actions consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Judge Sarah Pitlyk concluded that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege defendants&apos; parallel conduct and dismissed their claims. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2026 17:51:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/eighth-circuit-affirms-dismissal-of-seed-company-price-fixing-allegations</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Court Denies Northwest MLS&apos;s Bid To Dismiss Compass Antitrust Suit</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/court-denies-northwest-mlss-bid-to-dismiss-compass-antitrust-suit</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On March 19, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington denied Northwest Multiple Listing Service&apos;s (&quot;NWMLS&quot;) motion to dismiss an antitrust lawsuit brought by Compass, Inc. and Compass Washington, LLC, finding that Compass had plausibly alleged anticompetitive harm stemming from NWMLS&apos;s rules requiring member brokerages to list all properties on its platform before marketing them elsewhere. Compass Inc. v. Northwest Multiple Listing Service (W.D. Wash., March 19, 2026).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2026 17:49:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/court-denies-northwest-mlss-bid-to-dismiss-compass-antitrust-suit</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Federal District Court Denies Untimely Jurisdiction Challenge in Generic Drug Price-Fixing Case</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/federal-district-court-denies-untimely-jurisdiction-challenge-in-generic-drug-price-fixing-case</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On April 8, 2026, U.S. District Judge Michael P. Shea denied a motion by defendant Mallinckrodt PLC to dismiss an antitrust action brought by 45 state attorneys general for lack of personal jurisdiction or improper service, concluding the company forfeited those defenses by waiting more than five years after the complaint and by litigating on the merits in the interim. Plaintiffs&apos; claims therefore continue against defendant in Connecticut et al. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 3:20 cv 00802 MPS (D. Conn.) (the &quot;Dermatology Action&quot;), which alleges single drug conspiracies and an overarching agreement across roughly eighty generic dermatology drugs.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2026 17:49:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/federal-district-court-denies-untimely-jurisdiction-challenge-in-generic-drug-price-fixing-case</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Federal Court Grants Preliminary Injunction and Extends Temporary Restraining Order Blocking Integration of Nation&apos;s Two Largest Local Broadcast Station Owners</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/federal-court-grants-temporary-restraining-order-blocking-integration-of-nations-two-largest-local-broadcast-station-owners</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On March 27, 2026, Chief United States District Judge Troy L. Nunley of the Eastern District of California granted DIRECTV, LLC&apos;s (&quot;plaintiff&quot;) motion for a temporary restraining order (&quot;TRO&quot;) against Nexstar Media Group, Inc. and TEGNA Inc. (collectively &quot;defendants&quot;) to stop the integration and consolidation of TEGNA (&quot;target company&quot;) and Nexstar (&quot;defendant&quot;).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2026 13:57:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/federal-court-grants-temporary-restraining-order-blocking-integration-of-nations-two-largest-local-broadcast-station-owners</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Eastern District of North Carolina Grants Motion To Dismiss Conspiracy Claims In HVAC Refrigerant Market</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/eastern-district-of-north-carolina-grants-motion-to-dismiss-conspiracy-claims-in-hvac-refrigerant-market</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On February 20, 2026, Judge Terrence Boyle of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina dismissed all claims against Mexichem Fluor, Inc., a producer and distributor of refrigerant products, and its co-defendant, chemicals manufacturer The Chemours Company FC, LLC.  FluoroFusion Speciality Chemicals, Inc., et al. v. The Chemours Company FC, LLC, et al., No. 5:24-cv-716-BO-KS (E.D.N.C. Feb. 20, 2026). ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2026 19:41:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/eastern-district-of-north-carolina-grants-motion-to-dismiss-conspiracy-claims-in-hvac-refrigerant-market</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Grocery Store Chains Defeat Antitrust Claims Arising From Strike-Related No-Poach Agreement</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/grocery-store-chains-defeat-antitrust-claims-arising-from-strike-related-no-poach-agreement</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On February 6, 2026, Judge Gordon P. Gallagher of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted defendants&apos; motion to dismiss in Valarie Morgan v. The Kroger Co., et al., Civ. A. No. 25-cv-00837-GPG-CYC, dismissing a proposed class action antitrust lawsuit alleging the grocery giants violated antitrust law through a no-poach agreement entered into during a 2022 union strike.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Feb 2026 14:36:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/grocery-store-chains-defeat-antitrust-claims-arising-from-strike-related-no-poach-agreement</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Federal District Court Dismisses Foreign Parent Companies For Lack Of Jurisdiction In Polyurethane Price-Fixing Case</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/federal-district-court-dismisses-foreign-parent-companies-for-lack-of-jurisdiction-in-polyurethane-price-fixing-case</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On January 29, 2026, U.S. District Judge W. Scott Hardy of the Western District of Pennsylvania (W.D. Pa.) unsealed his January 8, 2026, opinion dismissing price-fixing claims against two foreign corporations for lack of personal jurisdiction. In re: Diisocyanates Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:18-mc-01001 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2026). The court dismissed with prejudice antitrust claims against Covestro AG (&quot;Covestro&quot;) and Wanhua Chemical Group Co., Ltd. (&quot;Wanhua&quot;), in a multidistrict litigation alleging that defendants conspired to fix the price of polyurethane components sold in or shipped to the United States and/or its territories. The Court held it lacked both general and specific personal jurisdiction over Covestro and Wanhua, entities headquartered in Germany and China, respectively.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2026 18:09:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/federal-district-court-dismisses-foreign-parent-companies-for-lack-of-jurisdiction-in-polyurethane-price-fixing-case</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Federal District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Blocking Pre-Commercial Heart Valve Acquisition</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/federal-district-court-grants-preliminary-injunction-blocking-pre-commercial-heart-valve-acquisition</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On January 23, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia unsealed its order granting a preliminary injunction blocking a life sciences company&apos;s proposed $945 million acquisition of a heart valve company, prompting defendant to abandon the deal.  Fed. Trade Comm&apos;n v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp., No. 1:25‑cv‑02569 (D.D.C. Jan. 23, 2026). ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2026 15:49:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/federal-district-court-grants-preliminary-injunction-blocking-pre-commercial-heart-valve-acquisition</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>National Ratings Business Enjoined From Tying Local Radio Ratings To National Data</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/national-ratings-business-enjoined-from-tying-local-ratings-to-national-data</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[Following a three-day evidentiary hearing in December 2025, Judge Jeannette Vargas, of the Southern District of New York, has issued a preliminary injunction enjoining defendant from charging a commercially unreasonable rate for its standalone nationwide radio ratings data and enforcing its &quot;Network Policy&quot; set to come into effect this year. Defendant is a major audience-measurement firm that in part supplies local and nationwide radio ratings data used to sell network advertising. Plaintiff, is a U.S. radio broadcast network that operates nearly 400 radio stations across 80+ local markets and sells national ads through a network arm.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2026 23:16:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/national-ratings-business-enjoined-from-tying-local-ratings-to-national-data</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Ninth Circuit Affirms Defeat Of Heart Rate Data Monopolization Claims</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/ninth-circuit-affirms-defeat-of-heart-rate-data-monopolization-claims</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On January 8, 2026, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to grant Apple summary judgment against claims that it monopolized the market for heart rate analysis applications on Apple Watch. AliveCore, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 24-1312 (9th Cir., Jan. 8, 2026).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jan 2026 22:10:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/ninth-circuit-affirms-defeat-of-heart-rate-data-monopolization-claims</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Washington Court Dismisses Antitrust Claims Against Cloud Computing Company</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/washington-court-dismisses-antitrust-claims-against-cloud-computing-company</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On December 22, 2025, U.S. District Judge Tana Lin of the Western District of Washington dismissed, without prejudice, antitrust claims brought by plaintiff against a cloud computing company (the &quot;Company&quot;).  ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2026 18:48:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/washington-court-dismisses-antitrust-claims-against-cloud-computing-company</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Southern District Of New York Grants Motion To Dismiss Sherman Act Claims In Elite Swimming Case</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/southern-district-of-new-york-grants-motion-to-dismiss-sherman-act-claims-in-elite-swimming-case</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On November 17, 2025, Judge Jesse Furman of the Southern District of New York granted defendants&apos; motion to dismiss Sherman Act claims relating to alleged exclusionary and monopolistic conduct in the elite swimming events and athlete services market. Enhanced US LLC v. World Aquatics, et al., No. 25-CV-7096 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2025).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2025 22:01:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/southern-district-of-new-york-grants-motion-to-dismiss-sherman-act-claims-in-elite-swimming-case</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Federal District Court Dismisses Manufactured Homes Price-Fixing Claims</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/federal-district-court-dismisses-manufactured-homes-price-fixing-claims</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On December 4, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed a proposed price-fixing and information sharing class action against several manufactured housing companies and Datacomp Appraisal Systems, Inc., the nation&apos;s largest manufactured and mobile home data vendor. In re Manufactured Home Lot Rents Antitrust Litig., No. 1:23-cv-06715 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 4, 2025). Judge Franklin U. Valderrama held the proffered class failed to plausibly allege a conspiracy to fix rent prices or properly define a relevant geographic market. ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2025 21:18:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/federal-district-court-dismisses-manufactured-homes-price-fixing-claims</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Meta &quot;Holds No Monopoly&quot; And Defeats FTC Antitrust Lawsuit</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/meta-holds-no-monopoly-and-defeats-ftc-antitrust-lawsuit</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On November 18, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered judgment for Meta Platforms, Inc. (&quot;Meta&quot;), denying the Federal Trade Commission&apos;s (&quot;FTC&quot;) request for a permanent injunction, holding that the agency failed to prove Meta currently holds monopoly power in the FTC&apos;s alleged relevant product market.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2025 18:36:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/meta-holds-no-monopoly-and-defeats-ftc-antitrust-lawsuit</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Northern District Of Illinois Denies FTC&apos;s Request To Block GTCR Acquisition Of Surmodics</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/northern-district-of-illinois-denies-ftcs-request-to-block-gtcr-acquisition-of-surmodics</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On November 10, 2025, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Cummings of the Northern District of Illinois (&quot;N.D. Ill.&quot;) issued an oral decision declining to block GTCR BC LLC&apos;s (&quot;GTCR&quot;) proposed $627 million acquisition of Surmodics, Inc. (&quot;Surmodics&quot;) after the Federal Trade Commission (&quot;FTC&quot;) and state regulators sought a preliminary injunction. Fed. Trade Comm&apos;n v. GTCR BC Holdings, LLC et al, No. 1:25-cv-02391 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 10, 2025).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2025 21:56:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/northern-district-of-illinois-denies-ftcs-request-to-block-gtcr-acquisition-of-surmodics</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>California District Court Grants Motion To Dismiss Antitrust Counterclaims Against Telecommunications Companies</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/california-district-court-grants-motion-to-dismiss-antitrust-counterclaims-against-telecommunications-companies</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On October 31, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted the motion to dismiss counterclaims brought by Defendant, which alleged that plaintiff telecommunications companies (&quot;Plaintiffs&quot;) violated Sherman Act &amp;sect; 1 and Sherman Act &amp;sect; 2 by using restrictive lease terms, defensive acquisitions, and litigation to maintain monopsony power and suppress prices paid to EBS license holders.  T‑Mobile USA, Inc., et al. v. WCO Spectrum, LLC, et al., No. 2:23‑cv‑04347‑AH‑E (C.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2025). ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2025 18:42:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/california-district-court-grants-motion-to-dismiss-antitrust-counterclaims-against-telecommunications-companies</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Minnesota Court Grants In Part And Denies In Part Motion To Dismiss Granulated Sugar Antitrust MDL</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/minnesota-court-grants-in-part-and-denies-in-part-motion-to-dismiss-granulated-sugar-antitrust-mdl</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On October 15, 2025, Judge Jerry W. Blackwell of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted in part and denied in part defendants&apos; motions to dismiss a multidistrict litigation alleging a conspiracy to fix prices and exchange competitively sensitive information among granulated sugar producers.  In re Granulated Sugar Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 34-3110 (JWB/DTS).  ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2025 18:53:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/minnesota-court-grants-in-part-and-denies-in-part-motion-to-dismiss-granulated-sugar-antitrust-mdl</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Southern District Of Indiana Grants Motion To Dismiss Sherman Act Claims In Pet-Retail Antitrust Case</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/SDOI-Grants-Motion-To-Dismiss-Sherman-Act-Claims-In-Pet-Retail-Antitrust-Case</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On October 7, 2025, Judge James Patrick Hanlon of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted in part and denied in part a brand name manufacturer of topical flea-and-tick products&apos; (the &quot;Company&quot; or defendant) motion to dismiss relating to defendant&apos;s alleged &quot;no generics&quot; agreements with major pet specialty retailers. Spradlin v. Elanco Animal Health, Inc. No. 1:24-cv-01299 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 07, 2025).  ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2025 15:24:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/SDOI-Grants-Motion-To-Dismiss-Sherman-Act-Claims-In-Pet-Retail-Antitrust-Case</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Dentists Denied Class Certification In Delta Dental Antitrust Lawsuit</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Dentists-Denied-Class-Certification-In-Delta-Dental-Antitrust-Lawsuit</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On September 22, 2025, United States District Judge Elaine E. Bucklo of the Northern District of Illinois denied class certification to a putative class of approximately 240,000 dentists that alleged Delta Dental, a nationwide provider of commercial dental insurance, conspired to suppress provider reimbursement rates in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  In re Delta Dental Antitrust Litig., 1:19-cv-06734, MDL 2931 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 22, 2025).  ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2025 17:32:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Dentists-Denied-Class-Certification-In-Delta-Dental-Antitrust-Lawsuit</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Southern District Of New York Dismisses Eyewear Antitrust Claims</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-of-New-York-dismisses-eyewear-antitrust-claims</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On September 26, 2025, Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted eyewear maker EssilorLuxottica&apos;s and related business entities&apos; (&quot;defendants&quot;) motion to dismiss two proposed class actions suits by direct and indirect purchasers of defendants&apos; products (&quot;plaintiffs&quot;) accusing defendants of engaging in an anticompetitive scheme to monopolize different U.S. consumer eyewear markets. In re Eyewear Antitrust Litig., No. 1:24-cv-04826 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2025).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2025 16:52:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-of-New-York-dismisses-eyewear-antitrust-claims</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Exclusivity Isn&apos;t Enough: Northern District Of California Dismisses Luxury Retail Tying Claims</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Dismisses-Luxury-Retail-Tying-Claims</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On September 17, 2025, Judge James Donato of the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a putative antitrust class action, holding that plaintiffs failed to state a plausible Sherman Act claim, dismissing all federal antitrust claims with prejudice, and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs&apos; state law claims in the absence of any remaining basis for federal jurisdiction.  Cavalleri v. Herm&amp;egrave;s International, No. 24-cv-01707-JD (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2025).  ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2025 18:15:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Dismisses-Luxury-Retail-Tying-Claims</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>No Shot At Victory: Eastern District Of Michigan Dismisses Monopolization Claims Against Energy Shot Company With Prejudice</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Monopolization-Claims-Against-Energy-Shot-Company-Dismissed-With-Prejudice</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On August 29, 2025, U.S. District Judge Jonathan Grey of the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed an action against makers of energy shots, with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to plausibly state a claim under the Sherman Act, Lanham Act, or for civil conspiracy.  Vitamin Energy, Inc. v. Bhargava, et al., No. 24-13125 (E.D. Mich. 2025).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2025 19:37:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Monopolization-Claims-Against-Energy-Shot-Company-Dismissed-With-Prejudice</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Court Dismisses Putative Price-Fixing Class Action Over Hotel Benchmarking</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Court-Dismisses-Putative-Price-Fixing-Class-Action-Over-Hotel-Benchmarking</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On August 29, 2025, the Honorable Robert S. Lasnik of the Western District of Washington granted defendants&apos; motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging price fixing in the hotel industry via information exchanged through Smith Travel Research (&quot;STR&quot;). Portillo, et al. v. CoStar Group, Inc., et al., No. 2:24-cv-00229-RSL, (W.D. Wash. Aug. 29, 2025).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2025 19:28:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Court-Dismisses-Putative-Price-Fixing-Class-Action-Over-Hotel-Benchmarking</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Ninth Circuit Dissolves Arrangement Between Rival Vegas Newspapers As Illegal</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-Dissolves-Arrangement-Between-Rival-Vegas-Newspapers</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On August 4, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sided with the Las Vegas Review-Journal (&quot;Defendants&quot;) in antitrust litigation with rival Las Vegas newspaper the Las Vegas Sun, Inc. (&quot;Plaintiff&quot;), reversing the district court&apos;s order that had denied a motion to dissolve a stipulated order requiring continued performance by the parties under a Joint Operating Agreement (&quot;JOA&quot;).  Las Vegas Sun, Inc. v. Adelson, et al., No. 2:19-cv-01667-ART-MDC (9th Cir. Aug. 4, 2025).  ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2025 18:48:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-Dissolves-Arrangement-Between-Rival-Vegas-Newspapers</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Shepherds Survive Wage-Fixing Suit Against Western Range Association</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Shepherds-Survive-Wage-Fixing-Suit-Against-Western-Range-Association</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On August 8, 2025, Chief Judge Miranda M. Du of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied all motions to dismiss and held that defendants Western Range Association (WRA) and eight member ranches must face Sherman Act claims alleging a years-long conspiracy to fix sheepherder wages and allocate labor.  Alvarado v. Western Range Ass&apos;n, No. 3:22-cv-00249-MMD-CLB (D. Nev. Aug. 8, 2025).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2025 18:41:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Shepherds-Survive-Wage-Fixing-Suit-Against-Western-Range-Association</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Eastern District Of Texas Denies Motion To Dismiss Coordinated Stewardship Complaint Against Asset Managers</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eastern-District-Of-Texas-Denies-Motion-To-Dismis</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On August 1, 2025, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas denied the motions to dismiss filed by three asset managers.  The complaint, brought by thirteen plaintiff states (Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Louisiana, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Wyoming) and supported by a joint DOJ/FTC statement of interest, alleges that defendants used ownership interests in major coal companies to limit coal production in furtherance of environmental stewardship and concern for the climate. ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2025 16:50:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eastern-District-Of-Texas-Denies-Motion-To-Dismis</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Federal Judge Tosses Hotel Price-Fixing Lawsuit Over Insufficient Evidence Of Collusion Through Revenue Software</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Federal-Judge-Tosses-Hotel-Price-Fixing-Lawsuit-Over-Insufficient-Evidence-Of-Collusion</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On July 18, 2025, Judge Jeffrey S. White of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss filed by hotel operators and a software provider in a high-profile antitrust case, but permitting plaintiffs leave to amend.  The 12(b)(6) motion challenged the sufficiency of plaintiffs&apos; allegations that defendants conspired to fix hotel room prices through the use of revenue management software.  Dai, et al. v. SAS Inst. Inc., et al., No. 24-cv-02537-JSW (N.D. Cal. 2025).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2025 18:08:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Federal-Judge-Tosses-Hotel-Price-Fixing-Lawsuit-Over-Insufficient-Evidence-Of-Collusion</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Court Dismisses Student Athlete Name, Image, And Likeness Putative Class Action</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Court-Dismisses-Student-Athlete-Name-Image-Likeness-Putative-Class-Action</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On July 18, 2025, U.S. District Judge Sarah Morrison of the Southern District of Ohio granted motions filed by the Ohio State University (&quot;OSU&quot;), Learfield Communications, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (&quot;NCAA&quot;) and the Big Ten Conference to dismiss antitrust claims by a putative class of former Ohio State student athletes.  Terrelle Pryor v. Nat&apos;l Collegiate Athletic Ass&apos;n, et al., No. 24-cv-04019, ECF No. 59 (S.D. Oh. Jul. 18, 2025).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2025 17:34:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Court-Dismisses-Student-Athlete-Name-Image-Likeness-Putative-Class-Action</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>US District Court Dismisses Antitrust Claims In Connection With Payment Network Market</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/US-District-Court-Dismisses-Antitrust-Claims-In-Connection-With-Payment-Network-Market</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On July 10, 2025, US District Judge David Dugan of the Southern District of Illinois (S.D. Ill.) granted without prejudice motions of Apple and two payment network providers to dismiss antitrust claims by a putative class of merchants who use Apple Pay.  Mirage Wine + Spirits, Inc. v. Apple Inc. et al., No. 3:23-cv-3942, ECF 178 (S.D. Ill. Jul 9, 2025).  The Court found that plaintiffs&apos; allegations were too speculative to support their theory of injury, and as such, failed to plead antitrust standing.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2025 18:14:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/US-District-Court-Dismisses-Antitrust-Claims-In-Connection-With-Payment-Network-Market</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>After Twenty Years, In Re Rail Freight Ends With Summary Judgment For Defendant Rail Companies After Judge Finds Inadequate Support For Parallel Conduct Allegations</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/In-Re-Rail-Freight-Ends-With-Summary-Judgment-For-Defendant-Rail-Companies</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On June 24, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted defendant rail companies&apos; motion for summary judgment on a Sherman Act Section 1 claim.  In a lengthy and sweeping multi-district litigation beginning in 2007, with 114 transferred cases, plaintiffs alleged a price-fixing conspiracy by rail companies.  In re Rail Freight Surcharge Antitrust Litig. (No. I), MDL Dkt. No. 1869 (D.D.C. June 24, 2025).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2025 19:45:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/In-Re-Rail-Freight-Ends-With-Summary-Judgment-For-Defendant-Rail-Companies</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Northern District Of Illinois Denies Motion To Dismiss Right-To-Repair Complaint Against A Manufacturer Of Agricultural Equipment</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Illinois-Court-Denies-Motion-To-Dismiss-Right-To-Repair-Complaint</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On June 09, 2025, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a motion to dismiss filed by a manufacturer of agricultural equipment (&quot;Defendant&quot;) in a right-to-repair action motion to dismiss in a right-to-repair action brought by the Federal Trade Commission (&quot;the FTC&quot;), accompanied by five states (Arizona, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin).  FTC v. Deere &amp; Co., No. 25-CV-50017 (N.D. Ill. June 9, 2025).  ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2025 17:54:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Illinois-Court-Denies-Motion-To-Dismiss-Right-To-Repair-Complaint</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Ninth Circuit Panel Affirms Ruling That &quot;Unclean Hands&quot; Does Not Bar Antitrust Standing</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Unclean-Hands-Does-Not-Bar-Antitrust-Standing</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On May 23, 2025, a panel for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed the application of the &quot;unclean hands&quot; doctrine to antitrust standing.  PharmacyChecker.com LLC v. LegitScript LLC, No. 24-2697 (9th Cir. May 23, 2025). ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2025 21:29:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Unclean-Hands-Does-Not-Bar-Antitrust-Standing</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Maker Of 5-hour ENERGY&amp;reg; Falls Short On Robinson-Patman Act Claims Again</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Maker-Of-5-hour-ENERGY-Falls-Short-On-Robinson-Patman-Act-Claims-Again</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On May 28, 2025, the United States District Court for the Central District of California held that plaintiffs failed to prove that they incurred an antitrust injury flowing from the differential promotional allowances provided to certain wholesalers by the manufacturer of 5-hour ENERGY&amp;reg;.  U.S. Wholesale Outlet &amp; Distrib., Inc., et al. v. Living Essentials, et al. (C.D. Ca. May 28, 2025).  ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2025 16:05:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Maker-Of-5-hour-ENERGY-Falls-Short-On-Robinson-Patman-Act-Claims-Again</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Ninth Circuit Rules In Favor Of Merging Parties In Microsoft/Activision Appeal</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-Rules-In-Favor-Of-Merging-Parties-In-Microsoft-Activision-Appeal</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On May 7, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court opinion that denied the Federal Trade Commission&apos;s (&quot;FTC&quot;) motion for a preliminary injunction against Microsoft&apos;s acquisition of Activision Blizzard, Inc.  Federal Trade Commission v. Microsoft Corp. and Activision Blizzard, Inc., No. 23-15992 (May 7, 2025). ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 13 May 2025 20:03:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-Rules-In-Favor-Of-Merging-Parties-In-Microsoft-Activision-Appeal</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Northern District Of California Finds Willful Violation Of Injunction By Apple, Orders Enforcement and Refers Matter For Criminal Contempt</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Finds-Willful-Violation-Of-Injunction-By-Apple</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On April 30, 2025, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion by Epic Games, Inc. to enforce a 2021 injunction against Apple Inc., finding that a senior Apple executive submitted false testimony and Apple willfully violated the order designed to prevent anticompetitive conduct and pricing practices in the iOS app marketplace.  Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 4:20-cv-05640, slip op. (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2025), ECF No. 1508.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2025 16:41:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Finds-Willful-Violation-Of-Injunction-By-Apple</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Central District Of California Denies Motion To Dismiss Antitrust Claims In Ticketing Class Action</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Central-District-Of-California-Denies-Motion-To-Dismiss-Antitrust-Claims-In-Ticketing-Class-Action</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On April 11, 2025, Judge George H. Wu of the United States District Court for the Central District of California issued a ruling on a motion to dismiss filed by Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and Ticketmaster LLC (&quot;Defendants&quot;) in a class action antitrust lawsuit alleging violations of Section 1 and Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. &amp;sect;&amp;sect; 1, 2.  Heckman, et al. v. Live Nation Ent., Inc., et al., No. 2:22-cv-00047 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2025). ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2025 20:46:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Central-District-Of-California-Denies-Motion-To-Dismiss-Antitrust-Claims-In-Ticketing-Class-Action</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>In-Home Nursing Agency Executive Convicted By Nevada Federal Jury In The Department Of Justice&apos;s First Victory In A Wage-Fixing Trial</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/In-Home-Nursing-Agency-Executive-Convicted-in-DOJ-Wage-Fixing-Trial</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On April 14, 2025, a federal jury in Nevada convicted a home healthcare nursing executive on one count of conspiracy to fix wages and five counts of wire fraud after a 15-day trial.  The verdict represents the DOJ&apos;s first criminal antitrust conviction relating to labor markets after a string of losses in cases dating back to 2020. ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2025 16:53:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/In-Home-Nursing-Agency-Executive-Convicted-in-DOJ-Wage-Fixing-Trial</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Ninth Circuit Upholds Dismissal Of Antitrust Claims Against Amazon Over Fulfillment Services </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-Upholds-Dismissal-Of-Antitrust-Claims-Against-Amazon</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On March 20, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court&apos;s dismissal of consumer Plaintiffs&apos; Sherman Act claims against Defendant Amazon, Inc. (&quot;Amazon&quot;), with prejudice, for lack of antitrust standing.  Hogan v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 24-1893, 2025 WL 1091671 (9th Cir. Mar. 20, 2025).  In upholding the trial court&apos;s decision, the Ninth Circuit panel agreed that plaintiffs—consumers who subscribe to Amazon&apos;s &quot;Prime&quot; membership service—did not suffer antitrust injury in the alleged relevant market, namely, the consumer-facing online retail market.  Having already twice amended the complaint and failed to plausibly allege antitrust injury, the Circuit Court affirmed the district court&apos;s decision to dismiss the action with prejudice for failure to state a claim. ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2025 18:56:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-Upholds-Dismissal-Of-Antitrust-Claims-Against-Amazon</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>California District Court Grants Software Company&apos;s Motion To Dismiss In Algorithmic Price Fixing Case</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Software-Co-Motion-To-Dismiss-In-Algorithmic-Price-Fixing-Case</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On March 21, 2025, Judge Jeffrey S. White of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted defendant software company&apos;s motion to dismiss plaintiffs&apos; claims of price-fixing under the Sherman Act, finding that plaintiffs failed to state a plausible claim on their alleged algorithm-based hub-and-spoke conspiracy.  Hanson Dai, et al. v. SAS Inst. Inc., et al., 4:24-cv-02537-JSW, (N. D. Cal.). ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2025 16:34:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Software-Co-Motion-To-Dismiss-In-Algorithmic-Price-Fixing-Case</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of Luxury Brands&apos; No-Poach Suit</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Affirms-Dismissal-Of-Luxury-Brands-No-Poach-Suit</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On March 13, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action asserting claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act against a department store chain (the &quot;Company&quot;) and certain luxury brands (the &quot;Brands&quot;).  Giordano v. Saks &amp; Co. LLC, No. 23-600-CV, 2025 WL 799270 (2d Cir. Mar. 13, 2025).  Plaintiffs alleged that the Company and the Brands entered into no-hire agreements that restrained competition in an alleged nationwide luxury retail employee market.  ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2025 15:38:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Affirms-Dismissal-Of-Luxury-Brands-No-Poach-Suit</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>New York State Court Finds Violation Of Donnelly Act Stemming From Ski Area Acquisition</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Violation-Of-Donnelly-Act-Stemming-From-Ski-Area-Acquisition</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On February 26, 2025, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Onondaga, rendered a decision involving an alleged anticompetitive acquisition under New York&apos;s Donnelly Act.  This decision demonstrates the importance of considering whether a contemplated acquisition may be scrutinized by state antitrust enforcers.  People v. Intermountain Mgmt., Inc., Index No. 008588/2022 (Sup. Ct, Onondaga Cty. 2025).  ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2025 14:26:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Violation-Of-Donnelly-Act-Stemming-From-Ski-Area-Acquisition</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Eastern District Of Pennsylvania Grants Defendants&apos; Motion To Dismiss Allegations Of Tying Discounted Drug Prices With Third-Party Administrator Use</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Motion-to-dismiss-allegations-of-tying-discounted-drug-prices-with-third-pary-admin-use</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On February 26, 2025, Judge Mia Perez of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted defendants&apos; motion to dismiss plaintiff&apos;s Sherman Act and Clayton Act claims, though the plaintiff had already conceded the Clayton Act claim during briefing. Brandywine Hospital, LLC v. CVS Health Corp., et al., No. 2:23-cv-01458-MRP (E.D. Pa. Feb. 26, 2025).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2025 21:23:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Motion-to-dismiss-allegations-of-tying-discounted-drug-prices-with-third-pary-admin-use</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>United States District Court Rejects FTC&apos;s Attempt To Block Tempur Sealy And Mattress Firm Vertical Merger</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Court-rejects-FTC-attempt-to-block-tempur-sealy-and-mattress-firm-vertical-merger</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On January 31, 2025, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied the Federal Trade Commission&apos;s (FTC) motion for a preliminary injunction to block the $4 billion acquisition of Mattress Firm by Tempur Sealy International, Inc.  Fed. Trade Comm&apos;n v. Tempur Sealy Int&apos;l, Inc., No. 4:24-CV-02508 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2025).  ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2025 17:52:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Court-rejects-FTC-attempt-to-block-tempur-sealy-and-mattress-firm-vertical-merger</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Fourth Circuit Affirms Denial Of Class Certification In Coupon Services Price Fixing Case</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Denial-Of-Class-Certification-in-coupon-services-price-fixing-case</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On February 12, 2025, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina not to grant class certification in a 17-year-old lawsuit accusing Inmar Inc. of fixing shipping prices for coupon processing services.  Mr. Dee&apos;s Inc. v. Inmar, Inc., No. 23-2165 (4th Cir. Feb. 12, 2025). ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2025 17:35:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Denial-Of-Class-Certification-in-coupon-services-price-fixing-case</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Ninth Circuit Affirms District Court&apos;s Rejection Of Private State Law Claims Against Qualcomm</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Rejection-of-private-state-law-claims-against-qualcomm</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On February 25, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the United States District Court for the Northern District of California&apos;s rejection of unlawful tying, exclusive dealing, and unfair competition claims brought under California state law by cellphone purchasers against cellular modem chip producer Qualcomm over policies related to patent licensing.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2025 17:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Rejection-of-private-state-law-claims-against-qualcomm</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>No Aftermarket, No Case: Northern District Of California Applies Recent Epic v. Apple Precedent To Dismiss Antitrust Suit Before Closing Arguments</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/No-Aftermarket-No-Case-Epic-v-Apple-Precedent</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On January 28, 2025, U.S. District Judge Araceli Mart&amp;iacute;nez-Olgu&amp;iacute;n granted judgment as a matter of law for defendant Intuitive Surgical, Inc. (&quot;Intuitive&quot; or &quot;defendant&quot;) on all claims brought by plaintiff, Surgical Instruments Service Co. Inc. (&quot;SIS&quot; or &quot;plaintiff&quot;).  The Court&apos;s ruling from the bench concluded a three-week jury trial at the eleventh hour before closing arguments.  In her ruling, Judge Mart&amp;iacute;nez-Olgu&amp;iacute;n relied on the Ninth Circuit&apos;s recent decision in Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 67 F.4th 946, 977 (9th Cir. 2023) to conclude that SIS could not prove an antitrust aftermarket and therefore could not proceed with its antitrust claims.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 21:39:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/No-Aftermarket-No-Case-Epic-v-Apple-Precedent</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Tenth Circuit Rejects Surgical Assistants&apos; Appeal In Surgical Credentials Monopolization Case</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Tenth-Circuit-Rejects-Surgical-Assistants-Appeal</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On January 21, 2025, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the United States District Court for the District of Colorado&apos;s dismissal of the Association of Surgical Assistants&apos; (ASA) challenge to the National Board of Surgical Technology and Surgical Assisting&apos;s (NBSTSA) certification regime. Ass&apos;n of Surgical Assistants v. Nat&apos;l Bd. of Surgical Technology and Surgical Assisting; Association of Surgical Technologists, No. 23-01344 (10th Cir., Jan. 21, 2025).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2025 19:20:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Tenth-Circuit-Rejects-Surgical-Assistants-Appeal</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Illinois District Court Dismisses Antitrust Case Alleging Monopolization Of Transportation Services For Canadian Crude Oil In Chicago</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/illinois-district-court-dismisses-antitrust-case-alleging-monopolization-of-transportation-services</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On January 13, 2025, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted defendant&apos;s motion to dismiss plaintiff&apos;s claim that it monopolized the market for &quot;Canadian crude oil transportation services in the Chicago area&quot; in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act and similar Illinois statutes, which require harmonization with federal laws.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2025 17:34:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/illinois-district-court-dismisses-antitrust-case-alleging-monopolization-of-transportation-services</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Game On: NBA Legend&apos;s Monopolization Challenge Against NASCAR To Proceed</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Game-On-NBA-Legendrsquos-Monopolization-Challenge</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On January 10, 2025, Judge Kenneth D. Bell of the United States Court for the Western District of North Carolina denied NASCAR&apos;s motion to dismiss stock car racing team 23XI Racing&apos;s (&quot;plaintiff&quot;) monopolization case against NASCAR (&quot;defendant&quot;).  2311 Racing LLC, et al. v. Nat. Ass&apos;n for Stock Car Auto Racing, LLC, et al., 3:24-cv-00886 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 10, 2025).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2025 20:27:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Game-On-NBA-Legendrsquos-Monopolization-Challenge</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Eastern District Of Virginia Overrules Objections To Proposed Divestiture Of Doorskin Manufacturing Plant</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eastern-District-Of-Virginia-Overrules-Objections</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On December 13, 2024, Judge Robert E. Payne of the Eastern District of Virginia, in a long-running private action that had previously found a consummated merger to be unlawful, overruled defendant&apos;s objections to the required divestiture of one of the molded interior doorskin manufacturing plants it had acquired.  Steves &amp; Sons, Inc. v. Jeld-Wen, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-545 (E.D. Va. Dec. 13, 2024).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2025 20:24:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eastern-District-Of-Virginia-Overrules-Objections</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>New York Federal Court Denies Defendants&apos; Motions To Dismiss Sports Streaming Antitrust Suit</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/New-York-Federal-Court-Denies-Defendants-motion-to-dismiss-sports-streaming-antitrust-suit</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On December 13, 2024, Judge Margaret M. Garnett of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied defendants&apos; motions to dismiss a sports streaming company&apos;s antitrust suit challenging their programming distribution methods as well as their proposed joint sports streaming service. FuboTV Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., No. 1:24-cv-01363 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2024). ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Dec 2024 16:27:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/New-York-Federal-Court-Denies-Defendants-motion-to-dismiss-sports-streaming-antitrust-suit</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Washington District Court Denies Motion To Dismiss In Algorithmic Rent Price-Fixing Case</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Washington-District-Court-Denies-Motion-To-Dismiss</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On December 4, 2024, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington denied defendants&apos; joint motion to dismiss plaintiffs&apos; class action price-fixing claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, allowing property renters to proceed with their allegations that software firm Yardi Systems, Inc. and multifamily property managers conspired to inflate rent prices. Duffy v. Yardi Sys., No. 2:23-cv-01391-RSL (W.D. Wash. Dec. 04, 2024).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 2024 21:43:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Washington-District-Court-Denies-Motion-To-Dismiss</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Game Developers Win Class Certification In Valve Antitrust Case</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Game-Developers-Win-Class-Certification-In-Valve-Antitrust-Case</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On November 25th, 2024, U.S. Western District Court of Washington Judge Jamal N. Whitehead certified a class of approximately 32,000 game developers who accuse digital PC game distributor Valve Corp. of stifling competition in the Personal Computer (&quot;PC&quot;) game distribution market through its Steam platform.  Wolfire Games LLC, et al. v. Valve Corp., et al., Docket No. 2:23-mc-00037 (W.D. Wash. Apr 26, 2023). ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Dec 2024 19:49:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Game-Developers-Win-Class-Certification-In-Valve-Antitrust-Case</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>District Court Of Connecticut Largely Denies Generic Drug Manufacturers&apos; &quot;Unusual&quot; Dismissal Motion Targeting Specific Types Of Relief </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/District-Court-Of-Connecticut-Largely-Denies-Generic-Drug-Manufacturers</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On November 12, 2024, Judge Michael P. Shea of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted in part and denied in part a joint motion to dismiss submitted by thirty-six defendant drug manufacturers facing &quot;sprawling&quot; antitrust claims brought by the Attorneys General of almost all U.S. states and territories. State of Conn. et al. v. Sandoz, Inc. et al., 20-cv-820 (D. Conn. Nov. 12, 2024). Ruling on the &quot;unusual&quot; 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss that asked the Court to preclude specific types of relief, the Court determined that the majority of plaintiffs&apos; challenged claims could proceed.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2024 19:16:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/District-Court-Of-Connecticut-Largely-Denies-Generic-Drug-Manufacturers</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>NASCAR Teams&apos; Legal Battle Hits Speed Bump With Denial Of Preliminary Injunction</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/NASCAR-Teamsrsquo-Legal-Battle-Hits-Speed-Bump</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[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 (&quot;NASCAR&quot;). 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 (&quot;Charter Agreement&quot; or &quot;Agreement&quot;) 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.
]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Nov 2024 20:45:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/NASCAR-Teamsrsquo-Legal-Battle-Hits-Speed-Bump</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Southern District Of New York Grants Preliminary Injunction, Pausing Merger Of Luxury Fashion Companies</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-Of-New-York-Grants-Preliminary</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On October 24, 2024, Judge Jennifer L. Rochon of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Federal Trade Commission&apos;s (&quot;FTC&quot;) motion for a preliminary injunction, thereby preliminarily enjoining the proposed merger of two luxury fashion companies (the &quot;Defendants&quot;).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2024 19:53:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-Of-New-York-Grants-Preliminary</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Utah District Court Grants Mattress Businesses&apos; Motion To Dismiss In Antitrust Case Alleging Conspiracy In And Monopolization Of The Mattresses Market</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Utah-District-Court-Grants-Mattress-Businesses</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On October 16, 2024, Judge David Barlow of the United States District Court for the District of Utah granted defendants&apos; motion to dismiss plaintiff&apos;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&apos;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).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Oct 2024 19:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Utah-District-Court-Grants-Mattress-Businesses</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SDNY Judge Refuses To Transfer DOJ Case Against Concert Promoter, Finding Attempt To Unwind A Merger Cleared By Consent Decree Does Not Necessarily &quot;Modify&quot; The Decree</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/SDNY-Judge-Refuses-To-Transfer-DOJ-Case-Against</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On October 3, 2024, United States District Judge Arun Subramanian refused to transfer the DOJ&apos;s monopolization case against two companies in the live entertainment industry (&quot;Defendants&quot;) 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&apos; 2010 merger to fall within its retention-of-jurisdiction provision. In his ruling, Judge Subramanian drew a distinction between the consent decree, which &quot;resolved a single claim arising under Section 7 of the Clayton Act,&quot; and DOJ&apos;s present allegations that defendants &quot;have violated separate legal duties&quot; under the Sherman Act and analogous state laws.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2024 19:09:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/SDNY-Judge-Refuses-To-Transfer-DOJ-Case-Against</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>New Jersey District Court Dismisses Algorithmic Room-Rate-Fixing Case Alleging Use Of Room Pricing Software By Atlantic City Casino-Hotels Violates Antitrust Law</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/New-Jersey-District-Court-Dismisses-Algorithmic-Rate-fixing-case-alleging</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On September 30, 2024, Judge Karen M. Williams of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed with prejudice a complaint, lodged by a putative class of consumers, that alleged various casino-hotels conspired to inflate and fix the price of their hotel rooms by means of pricing software used by each defendant. The Court held that plaintiffs failed to establish a plausible price-fixing conspiracy in violation of antitrust law because plaintiffs: (i) failed to demonstrate parallel conduct; and (ii) did not allege that the algorithm pricing was based on pooled proprietary data. Cornish-Adebiyi, et al. v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc., et al., No. 1:23-CV-02536-KMW-EAP, 2024 WL 4356188 (D.N.J. Sept. 30, 2024).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Oct 2024 18:24:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/New-Jersey-District-Court-Dismisses-Algorithmic-Rate-fixing-case-alleging</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Plaintiffs Alleging Per Se Group Boycott Win Reversal In Ninth Circuit</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Plaintiffs-Alleging-Per-Se-Group-Boycott-Win</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On September 17, 2024, a unanimous panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted an appeal from a group of professional swimmers and the International Swimming League (&quot;ISL&quot;) (together, &quot;Plaintiffs&quot;) in their ongoing litigation against World Aquatics, formerly known as F&amp;eacute;d&amp;eacute;ration Internationale de Natation, the governing body for international and Olympic aquatic sports (&quot;FINA&quot; or &quot;Defendant&quot;). Shields, et al. v. World Aquatics, No. 23-15092 (9th Cir. Sept. 17, 2024). Plaintiffs&apos; primary allegation in the litigation is that Defendant engaged in a group boycott of ISL, an upstart competitor to Defendant.  ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2024 18:50:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Plaintiffs-Alleging-Per-Se-Group-Boycott-Win</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Court Grants Motion To Dismiss In Antitrust Case Alleging Boycott Conspiracy Of Crop Protection Products</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Court-Grants-Motion-To-Dismiss-In-Antitrust-Case</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On September 13, 2024, in a multidistrict litigation, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted defendants&apos; motion to dismiss plaintiffs&apos; class action claim of a conspiracy to artificially inflate prices in the United States for seed and crop protection chemicals (&quot;Crop Inputs&quot;), such as fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides. In re Crop Inputs Antitrust Litigation, 21-md-02993-SEP (E.D. Mo. Sept. 13, 2024). Central to plaintiffs&apos; claim is an alleged scheme by defendants, including the largest wholesalers and retailers of Crop Inputs in the United States, to impede pricing transparency by boycotting electronic sales platforms for Crop Inputs in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs were direct and indirect purchasers of Crop Inputs, like farmers, who also brought claims for violation of state antitrust and consumer protection statutes.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Sep 2024 17:41:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Court-Grants-Motion-To-Dismiss-In-Antitrust-Case</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Fifth Circuit Dismisses U.S. Anesthesia Partners&apos; Appeal, Declining To Hear Constitutional Claims Under Collateral Order Doctrine</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Fifth-Circuit-Dismisses-US-Anesthesia-Partners-Appeal</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[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 (&quot;USAP&quot;) in its ongoing litigation against the Federal Trade Commission (&quot;FTC&quot;).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2024 17:13:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Fifth-Circuit-Dismisses-US-Anesthesia-Partners-Appeal</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Eastern District Of Pennsylvania Denies Motion To Compel The Election Of Defendants&apos; &quot;Subjective Beliefs&quot;</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eastern-District-Of-Pennsylvania-Denies-Motion</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[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 &quot;subjective beliefs&quot; of their decisionmakers concerning allegedly meritless patent litigation.  King Drug Co. of Florence v. Abbott Lab&apos;ys, No. CV 19-3565, 2024 WL 3904045 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 22, 2024).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2024 16:57:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eastern-District-Of-Pennsylvania-Denies-Motion</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Fourth Circuit Affirms That Continuing Violation Doctrine Does Not Preserve Time-Barred Antitrust Claims Without &quot;New&quot; Harm Or Injury Within The Limitations Period</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Continuing-Violation-Doctrine-Does-Not-Preserve-Time-Barred-Antitrust-Claims</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On August 29, 2024, the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court&apos;s decision granting summary judgment and dismissing antitrust claims by CSX Transportation, Inc. (&quot;CSX&quot; or &quot;Plaintiff&quot;)  against Norfolk Southern Railway Company (&quot;Norfolk Southern&quot;) and Norfolk &amp; Portsmouth Belt Line Railroad Company (&quot;Belt Line&quot;) (collectively, &quot;Defendants&quot;) for alleged exclusionary fees, finding that CSX&apos;s claims were untimely and could not be saved by the &quot;continuing violation&quot; doctrine.  CSX Transp., Inc. v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., et al., No. 23-1537 (4th Cir. 2024).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2024 15:52:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Continuing-Violation-Doctrine-Does-Not-Preserve-Time-Barred-Antitrust-Claims</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Complaint Against Health Company Sufficiently Pleads Non-Interchangeability Of Emergency Room And Urgent Care Service</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Complaint-Against-Health-Company-Pleads-non-interchangeability</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On September 5, 2024, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied Health First, Inc.&apos;s motion to dismiss plaintiffs&apos; 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).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2024 15:38:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Complaint-Against-Health-Company-Pleads-non-interchangeability</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Fifth Circuit Dismisses U.S. Anesthesia Partners Appeal, Declining To Hear Constitutional Claims Under Collateral Order Doctrine</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Fifth-Circuit-Dismisses-US-Anesthesia</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[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 (&quot;USAP&quot;) in its ongoing litigation against the Federal Trade Commission (&quot;FTC&quot;).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Aug 2024 16:43:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Fifth-Circuit-Dismisses-US-Anesthesia</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>U.S. DOJ Seeks Rare USD3.5 million &quot;Gun Jumping&quot; Penalty For Alleged Pre-Closing Conduct In Violation Of Hart-Scott-Rodino Act </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/US-DOJ-Seeks-Rare-USD35-million-Gun-Jumping</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On August 5, 2024, the United States Department of Justice filed a rare gun jumping civil lawsuit and proposed settlement in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against a global sports and entertainment venue services company (the &quot;acquiror&quot;) in connection with its acquisition of a venue services/management company (the &quot;acquiree&quot;). United States v. Legends Hosp. Parent Holdings, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-5927 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2024).
]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Aug 2024 15:48:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/US-DOJ-Seeks-Rare-USD35-million-Gun-Jumping</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Health Care Company Secures Antitrust Victory With Jury Verdict In Its Favor</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Health-Care-Company-Secures-Antitrust-Victory</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[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&apos;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).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Aug 2024 13:49:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Health-Care-Company-Secures-Antitrust-Victory</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>District Courts Split On Federal Trade Commission&apos;s Non-Compete Clause Rule</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/District-Courts-Split-On-Federal-Trade-Commission</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On July 23, 2024, Judge Kelley Brisbon Hodge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied plaintiff&apos;s motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)&apos;s Non-Compete Clause Rule (the &quot;Rule&quot;), which bans the use of most non-compete clauses in employment contracts and is set to go into effect on September 4, 2024. ATS Tree Services, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 2:24-CV-01743, ECF No. 80 (E.D. Pa. July 23, 2024). A diverging opinion out of the Northern District of Texas granting plaintiffs&apos; motion for a preliminary injunction in that case, and a pending case in the Middle District of Florida, sets up a likely challenge of the Rule up to the Supreme Court. SeeRyan v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 3:24-CV-00986, ECF No. 153 (N.D. Tex. July 3, 2024); Properties of the Villages, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 5:24-CV-00316 (M.D. Fla.).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jul 2024 14:01:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/District-Courts-Split-On-Federal-Trade-Commission</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Federal Trade Commission Unanimously Votes To Block Vertical Mattress Merger</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Federal-Trade-Commission-Unanimously-Votes</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[After a 5-0 vote, on July 2, 2024, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission sought to block mattress manufacturer (the &quot;Manufacturer&quot;) contemplated $4 billion acquisition of a mattress retailer (&quot;Retailer&quot;) by filing both an administrative complaint and a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, the latter with a request for preliminary relief to enjoin the transaction pending the administrative proceeding. According to the FTC, the proposed acquisition would combine the world&apos;s largest mattress supplier with the nation&apos;s largest mattress retailer. Notably, the issuance of this complaint has bipartisan support with Republican Commissioner Holyoak releasing a statement in support of the FTC staff&apos;s thorough investigation.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jul 2024 16:04:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Federal-Trade-Commission-Unanimously-Votes</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Eastern District Of New York Finds Circumstantial Evidence Enough To Defeat Summary Judgment Motion In Antitrust Case Against United States Soccer Federation And Major League Soccer</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Antitrust-Case-Against-United-States-Soccer-Federation-And-Major-League-Soccer</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On June 11, 2024, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part and denied in part Defendants&apos; (United States Soccer Federation, Inc. (&quot;U.S. Soccer&quot;) and Major League Soccer, LLC (&quot;MLS&quot;)) motions for summary judgment on Plaintiff&apos;s (North American Soccer League, LLC (&quot;NASL&quot;)) claim that Defendants conspired to exclude it from competing in the men&apos;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&apos;s monopolization claims to go forward to trial.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jul 2024 18:27:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Antitrust-Case-Against-United-States-Soccer-Federation-And-Major-League-Soccer</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Plaintiffs Win Preliminary Injunction Blocking The FTC&apos;s Ban On Non-Competes</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Plaintiffs-Win-Preliminary-Injunction-Blocking-The-FTC-Ban-On-Non-Competes</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On July 3, 2024, the United States District Court of the Northern District of Texas granted a preliminary injunction barring the Federal Trade Commission from enforcing its rule against non-compete agreements (&quot;Rule&quot;).  Ryan LLC v. FTC, No. 3:24-cv-00986-E, 2024 WL 3297524 (N.D. Tex. July 3, 2024) (&quot;Opinion&quot;).  The Court did not issue a nationwide injunction, extending relief only to plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenors (collectively, &quot;Plaintiffs&quot;).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jul 2024 18:22:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Plaintiffs-Win-Preliminary-Injunction-Blocking-The-FTC-Ban-On-Non-Competes</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>DOJ Fails To Secure Jury Trial In Adtech Monopoly Suit After Damages Claim Mooted By $2.3 Million Cashier&apos;s Check</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Fails-To-Secure-Jury-Trial-In-Adtech-Monopoly</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On June 11, 2024, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted defendant&apos;s motion to dismiss plaintiffs&apos; 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&apos;s offices in the form of a cashier&apos;s check. The Court also struck plaintiffs&apos; 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).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jun 2024 18:27:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Fails-To-Secure-Jury-Trial-In-Adtech-Monopoly</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Wisconsin District Court Dismisses Motorcycle Purchasers&apos; Tying Claims</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Wisconsin-District-Court-Dismisses-Motorcycle</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On June 5, 2024, Judge William Griesbach of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin dismissed an action brought by a class of Harley-Davidson purchasers alleging that the motorcycle manufacturer unlawfully tied its motorcycles and the accompanying factory warranty to Harley-Davidson replacement parts. In Re: Harley-Davidson Aftermarket Parts Marketing, Sales Practices, and Antitrust Litigation, No. 23-MD-3064, 2024 WL 2846349 (E.D. Wis. June 5, 2024). The lawsuit stems from a 2022 Federal Trade Commission (FTC) action alleging Harley-Davidson violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) by voiding warranties for repairs made using third-party parts. The MMWA is a consumer protection statute that requires transparency in warranties on consumer products and establishes minimum criteria for different types of warranties and warranty-like products. Unlike the FTC suit, however, here plaintiffs also alleged a Sherman Act Section 1 violation. But finding plaintiffs had failed to properly allege an actionable tying scheme, the Court dismissed the action in its entirety.
]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2024 18:10:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Wisconsin-District-Court-Dismisses-Motorcycle</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>U.S. District Court For The Western District Of North Carolina Denies FTC Bid To Block North Carolina Hospital Deal</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/US-District-Court-For-The-Western-District</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On June 5, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina denied the Federal Trade Commission&apos;s request for a preliminary injunction barring Novant Health, Inc.&apos;s $320 million acquisition of two North Carolina hospitals, Lake Norman Regional Medical Center and Davis Regional Psychiatric Hospital, both operated by Community Health Systems, Inc. (&quot;CHS&quot;).
]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:12:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/US-District-Court-For-The-Western-District</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>NCAA Proposes Settlement To Class Action Antitrust Litigation</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/NCAA-Proposes-Settlement-To-Class-Action-Antitrust</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On May 23, 2024, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (&quot;NCAA&quot;) reached an agreement with five of the nation&apos;s collegiate athletic conferences—the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Big Ten, the Big 12, the Pac-12, and the Southeastern Conference—to allow student athletes to receive pay directly from their colleges and universities. The agreement is intended to settle In re: College Athlete NIL Litigation, Case No. 4:20-cv-03919, N.D. Cal., an ongoing antitrust class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California involving hundreds of thousands of collegiate athletes. 
]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jun 2024 16:31:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/NCAA-Proposes-Settlement-To-Class-Action-Antitrust</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of &quot;Pay For Delay&quot; Case Alleging Patent Litigation Settlement Between Pharmaceutical Company And Generic Manufacturers Violated Antitrust Law</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Affirms-Dismissal-Of-Pay-For</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[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 &quot;reverse payments&quot; 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). ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 29 May 2024 15:15:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Affirms-Dismissal-Of-Pay-For</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>District Of Nevada Dismisses With Prejudice Price-Algorithm Suit Against Las Vegas Strip Hotel Operators And Software Company</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/District-Of-Nevada-Dismisses-With-Prejudice-Price</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On May 8, 2024, Judge Miranda M. Du of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada dismissed with prejudice a putative class action complaint alleging the unlawful restraint of trade via a hub-and-spoke conspiracy between and among an algorithmic pricing software company and multiple operators of hotels on the Las Vegas Strip in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Gibson v. Cendyn Group, LLC, et al, No. 2:23-CV-00140-MMD-DJA, 2024 WL 2060260 (D. Nev. May 8, 2024).
]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2024 16:19:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/District-Of-Nevada-Dismisses-With-Prejudice-Price</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Eastern District Of Virginia Rejects Allegations Of Fraudulent Concealment And Dismisses No-Poach Case As Time-Barred</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eastern-District-Of-Virginia-Rejects-Allegations</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On April 19, 2024, Judge Anthony Trenga of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted a motion to dismiss an antitrust class action against several shipbuilding companies who supply the U.S miliary. The action was brought on behalf of a putative class of persons employed as naval architects or marine engineers by defendants. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by allegedly entering into an unwritten agreement not to affirmatively recruit one another&apos;s naval engineers or architects. The Court ultimately concluded that the claims were barred by the Sherman Act&apos;s four-year statute of limitations, and accordingly dismissed the action in its entirety. Scharpf, et al. v. General Dynamics Corp. et al., No. 123CV01372AJTWEF, 2024 WL 1704665 (E.D. Va. Apr. 19, 2024).
]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2024 18:25:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eastern-District-Of-Virginia-Rejects-Allegations</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>D.C. Circuit Reverses Lower Court&apos;s Decision To &quot;Set Aside&quot; Civil Investigative Demand</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/DC-Circuit-Reverses-Lower-Court</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On April 5, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the district court&apos;s decision to &quot;set aside&quot; a civil investigative demand (&quot;CID&quot;) issued by the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) to the National Association of Realtors (&quot;NAR&quot;), a real estate trade association. The majority found that the issuance of the CID was not barred by the parties&apos; prior settlement agreement regarding different allegations. National Association of Realtors v. United States, No.23-5065, 2024 WL 1471170 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 5, 2024).
]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2024 20:24:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/DC-Circuit-Reverses-Lower-Court</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Eastern District Of California Denies Motion To Dismiss Case Alleging Horizontal Price Fixing Conspiracy Of Real Property In Solano County</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eastern-District-Of-California-Denies-Motion-To</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On March 28, 2024, Judge Troy L. Nunley of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that California landowners conspired to drive up the price of properties in Solano County. Flannery Assoc. LLC v. Barnes Family Ranch Assoc., LLC et al., No. 2:23-CV-00927 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2024). The Court held that plaintiff had adequately alleged both direct and circumstantial evidence of a horizontal price-fixing agreement.
]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2024 17:27:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eastern-District-Of-California-Denies-Motion-To</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Southern District Of New York Dismisses Multichannel Video Programming Distributor&apos;s Retransmission Fee Claims For Lack Of Antitrust Standing</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-Of-New-York-Dismisses-Multichannel</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On March 20, 2024, the Southern District of New York dismissed DirecTV&apos;s (&quot;Plaintiff&quot;) claims against Nexstar Media Group, Mission Broadcasting, and White Knight Broadcasting (together, &quot;Defendants&quot;) for conspiring to fix prices for retransmission agreements (&quot;RCAs&quot;) and unlawfully sharing information in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. DirecTV LLC v. Nexstar Media Group Inc. et al., Case No. 23-cv-2221, 2024 WL 1195524 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2024) (the &quot;Opinion&quot;).
]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2024 19:47:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-Of-New-York-Dismisses-Multichannel</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Northern District Of California Grants Summary Judgment Finding That Evidence Of Valid Business Justification For Refusal-To-Deal Was Sufficient Despite Evidence Of Anticompetitive Intent</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Grants-Summary</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[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&apos;s ban on attempts to monopolize a market.
]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2024 18:45:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Grants-Summary</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Eastern District Of Tennessee Says NCAA&apos;s Rules Prohibiting Use Of Name, Image, And Likeness Agreements In Recruiting Student Athletes May Violate Sherman Act</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eastern-District-Of-Tennessee-Says-NCAA</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On February 23, 2024, Judge Clifton L. Corker of the Eastern District of Tennessee enjoined the National Collegiate Athletic Association (&quot;NCAA&quot;) from enforcing rules that prohibited third parties from entering into compensation agreements with student-athletes during the recruiting and transfer process as a potential violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. State of Tennessee and Commonwealth of Virginia v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 3:24-cv-00033, 2024 WL 755528 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 23, 2024).
]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2024 18:40:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eastern-District-Of-Tennessee-Says-NCAA</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Third Circuit Rejects Petition For Mandamus And Backs Ruling Requiring Production Of Communications With Counsel Regarding Suit With &quot;Pay-for-Delay&quot; Settlement</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Third-Circuit-Rejects-Petition-For-Mandamus</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On March 11, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied a mandamus petition from AbbVie Inc. and Besins Healthcare Inc. (collectively &quot;Petitioners&quot;) seeking to overturn a district court order which required the production of documents prepared by in-house counsel pursuant to the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege. In re Abbott Lab&apos;ys, No. 23-2412, 2024 WL 1040669 (3d Cir. Mar. 11, 2024). In its opinion, the Court cited the high bar for mandamus petitions, the lack of binding precedent with a similar fact pattern, and the alternative remedies that remain available to Petitioners.
]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2024 18:34:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Third-Circuit-Rejects-Petition-For-Mandamus</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of Conspiracy Claims Alleging Section One Violations In The Primary And Secondary Markets For U.S. Treasury Securities</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Affirms-Dismissal-Of-Conspiracy-Claims</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On February 1, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a class action alleging bid-rigging and boycott conspiracies under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Second Circuit found that Plaintiffs—eighteen pension funds and other investors in Treasury securities—failed to plausibly allege that Defendants—&quot;primary dealers&quot; in the market for U.S. Treasury securities—engaged in conspiracies to rig Treasury auctions or that a subset of these defendants participated in a group boycott in the secondary Treasuries market, because Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the existence of an agreement with regard to either allegation.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 2024 16:12:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Affirms-Dismissal-Of-Conspiracy-Claims</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>District Court Concludes Red Cross Is Exempt From Antitrust Claims Despite DOJ Statement To The Contrary
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/District-Court-Concludes-Red-Cross-Is-Exempt-From</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 19, 2024, Judge Patti B. Saris of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts held that American National Red Cross (&quot;ARC&quot;) is not a &quot;person&quot; under the Sherman Act and therefore not subject to the Act&apos;s prohibitions. Verax Biomedical Inc. v. American National Red Cross, 2024 WL 208127 (D. Mass. Jan. 19, 2024). Plaintiff, a manufacturer of tests for detecting bacterial growth in blood platelets, alleged that ARC, the largest supplier of blood platelets in the United States, leveraged its power in the market for platelets to monopolize the market for bacterial growth mitigation services. Specifically, plaintiff brought three claims under the Sherman Act: tying, exclusive dealing and attempted monopolization. But, because the Court found that the Sherman Act does not reach ARC, it dismissed all three antirust claims. Notably, the Court reached this conclusion even after the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) filed a statement of intertest with the Court, arguing that ARC can indeed be sued under the Sherman Act.
]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2024 14:45:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/District-Court-Concludes-Red-Cross-Is-Exempt-From</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Northern District Court Rejects Medical Technology Company&apos;s Bid To Limit Scope Of Discovery And Recoverable Damages Of Antitrust Claims Using Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Court-Rejects-Medical-Technology</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On January 17, 2024, Judge Jeremy C. Daniel of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) denied defendants&apos; 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).
]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2024 20:14:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Court-Rejects-Medical-Technology</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Fifth Circuit Largely Upholds Prior Illumina/Grail Finding But Vacates And Remands Decision Due To FTC&apos;s Treatment Of Parties&apos; Rebuttal Evidence
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Fifth-Circuit-Largely-Upholds-Prior-IlluminaGrail</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On December 15, 2023, a panel of the United States Circuit Court for the Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded the U.S. Federal Trade Commission&apos;s (the &quot;Commission,&quot; when referred to as a judicial body, and &quot;Complaint Counsel&quot; when referred to as a complainant) April 3, 2023 Opinion and Order, which required Illumina, Inc. (the &quot;Company&quot;) to divest Grail, Inc. (the &quot;Acquiree&quot;).  Although the Fifth Circuit substantially agreed with the Commission&apos;s initial Clayton Act Section 7 analysis reversing an Administrative Law Judge&apos;s (&quot;ALJ&quot;) September 2022 dismissal of the complaint, it held that the Commission made a &quot;legal error&quot; when it analyzed the Company&apos;s pre-closing standardized consumer supply contract as a remedy, instead of as rebuttal evidence to the Complaint Counsel&apos;s prima facie case.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2024 17:05:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Fifth-Circuit-Largely-Upholds-Prior-IlluminaGrail</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Sherman Act Claims Of Two Classes Of DirecTV NFL Sunday Ticket Subscribers Will Head To Trial
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Sherman-Act-Claims-Of-Two-Classes-Of-DirecTV-NFL-</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 11, 2024, Judge Philip S. Gutierrez of the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied defendants&apos; motion for summary judgment in a case alleging that the National Football League (&quot;NFL&quot;) 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&apos;l Football League&apos;s Sunday Ticket Antitrust Litig., No. ML 15-02668 PSG (SK), 2024 WL 168298 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2024).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2024 16:42:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Sherman-Act-Claims-Of-Two-Classes-Of-DirecTV-NFL-</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Northern District Of California Dismisses &quot;Two-Way Tying&quot; Claim With Leave To Replead
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Dismisses-Two-Way-Tying</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 30, 2023, Chief Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a lawsuit alleging that Google illegally ties its mapping applications in violation of U.S. antitrust law. At issue were defendant&apos;s application programing interfaces (&quot;API&apos;s&quot;) &quot;Maps,&quot; &quot;Routes,&quot; and &quot;Places.&quot; Plaintiffs claimed that defendant unlawfully ties these three APIs together, by purportedly refusing to sell one service unless the purchaser also agrees to buy the other mapping services or agrees to refrain from purchasing similar services from any alternative source. According to plaintiffs, because of defendant&apos;s alleged market power, this tying scheme allowed defendant to charge higher prices for its mapping services in violation of the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and California&apos;s Unfair Competition Law. Dream Big Media Inc., et al. v. Alphabet Inc., et al., 2023 WL 8285808 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2023).
]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Dec 2023 21:35:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Dismisses-Two-Way-Tying</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Fifth Circuit Grants Mandamus Relief To Car Company, Clarifying That Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine Does Apply In Antitrust Cases
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Fifth-Circuit-Grants-Mandamus-Relief-To-Car-Company-Clarifying-That-Forum-Non-Conveniens</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Dec 2023 18:46:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Fifth-Circuit-Grants-Mandamus-Relief-To-Car-Company-Clarifying-That-Forum-Non-Conveniens</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Eleventh Circuit Holds That Evidence Requiring The Court To Make Inferences Cannot Be &quot;Direct&quot; Evidence Of An Antitrust Conspiracy
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eleventh-Circuit-Holds-That-Evidence-Requiring-The-Court-To-Make-Inferences-Cannot</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On October 30, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court&apos;s summary judgment in favor of defendants Ring Power Corporation, Ziegler, Inc., and Thompson Tractor Company, Inc., because plaintiff International Construction Products, LLC (ICP) failed to present sufficient evidence—direct or circumstantial—to establish a conspiracy to boycott under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  International Construction Products, LLC v. Ring Power Corporation, No. 22-10231, 2023 WL 7127515 (11th Cir. Oct. 30, 2023).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 2023 16:17:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eleventh-Circuit-Holds-That-Evidence-Requiring-The-Court-To-Make-Inferences-Cannot</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of Sherman &amp;sect;1 And &amp;sect;2 Claims Against Technology Company, Determining Plaintiffs&apos; &quot;Scattershot&quot; Market Definition Was Inadequate
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-Affirms-Dismissal-Of-Sherman-Section-1-And-Section-2-Claims-Against-Technology</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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 (&quot;Plaintiffs&quot;) against a technology company (the &quot;Company&quot;) 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).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Nov 2023 22:08:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-Affirms-Dismissal-Of-Sherman-Section-1-And-Section-2-Claims-Against-Technology</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>ABPN Wins Dismissal Of Antitrust Challenge To Professional Certification Program
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/ABPN-Wins-Dismissal-Of-Antitrust-Challenge-To-Professional-Certification-Program</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On October 4, 2023, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted with leave to amend the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology&apos;s (ABPN) motion to dismiss a class action alleging in part that ABPN&apos;s tying of its professional certification to its maintenance of certification (MOC) program violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibiting illegal restraints of trade or commerce.  Lazarou v. Am. Bd. of Psychiatry &amp; Neurology, No. 19-cv-01614 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 4, 2023).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Nov 2023 17:33:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/ABPN-Wins-Dismissal-Of-Antitrust-Challenge-To-Professional-Certification-Program</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Seventh Circuit Vacates $57 Million Attorney Fees Award In Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Seventh-Circuit-Vacates-57-Million-Attorney-Fees-Award-In-Broiler-Chicken-Antitrust-Litigation</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 30, 2023, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded back to the district court an award of $57.4 million in attorney fees in one of several private class actions with claims alleging unlawful price-fixing in the broiler chicken industry via exchange of data through a third-party research compiler.  In re: Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 22-2889 (7th Cir. Aug. 30, 2023).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:56:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Seventh-Circuit-Vacates-57-Million-Attorney-Fees-Award-In-Broiler-Chicken-Antitrust-Litigation</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Third Circuit Says Rule Of Reason Applies To Price-Fixing Conspiracies With Horizontal And Vertical Components
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Third-Circuit-Says-Rule-Of-Reason-Applies-To-Price-Fixing-Conspiracies-With-Horizontal</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 28, 2023, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania&apos;s application of the rule of reason to evaluate a complex price-fixing conspiracy involving both horizontal and vertical relationships between defendants.  Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., et al. v. Eastern Mushroom Marketing Cooperative, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-2289, 2023 WL 5521221 (3d. Cir. Aug. 28, 2023).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:56:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Third-Circuit-Says-Rule-Of-Reason-Applies-To-Price-Fixing-Conspiracies-With-Horizontal</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Sixth Circuit Applies Noerr-Pennington To Private Standard-Setting Organization
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Sixth-Circuit-Applies-Noerr-Pennington-To-Private-Standard-Setting-Organization</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 12, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court&apos;s dismissal of Sherman Act claims by a supplier of wastewater treatment products against two of its competitors and a private standard-setting organization, NSF International, holding that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine protected defendants from Sherman Act liability.  Geomatrix, LLC v. NSF Int&apos;l, No. 22-1947, 2023 WL 5925977 (6th Cir. Sept. 12, 2023).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:55:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Sixth-Circuit-Applies-Noerr-Pennington-To-Private-Standard-Setting-Organization</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Ranchers&apos; Claims Against Meat Packers Found Too Remote For Antitrust Standing
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ranchers-Claims-Against-Meat-Packers-Found-Too-Remote-For-Antitrust-Standing</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 17, 2023, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed a complaint brought by &quot;cow-calf&quot; ranchers alleging they had been injured by a conspiracy by  defendant meat packers to artificially depress the price they paid for fed cattle.  In re Cattle and Beef Antitrust Litigation, No. 22-3031 (D. Minn. Aug. 17, 2023).  District Judge John R. Tunheim held that the ranchers, who had not sold directly to defendants, had not adequately alleged &quot;traceability&quot; to show that the allegedly depressed prices they received for cows and calves they sold during the alleged conspiracy period were connected to defendants&apos; conduct, but left the option open for plaintiffs to refile their complaint.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Sep 2023 14:33:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ranchers-Claims-Against-Meat-Packers-Found-Too-Remote-For-Antitrust-Standing</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>D.C. Circuit Rejects FTC&apos;s Appeal Related To Alleged Anticompetitive Conduct Stemming From Endo And Impax&apos;s Patent Settlement Agreement, Holding It Was No Different From A Permissible Exclusive Licensing Agreement
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/DC-Circuit-Rejects-FTC-Appeal-Related-To-Alleged-Anticompetitive-Conduct-Stemming</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 25, 2023, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C Circuit affirmed the district court&apos;s dismissal of the FTC&apos;s complaint against Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. (&quot;Endo&quot;), Impax Laboratories LLC (&quot;Impax&quot;) and their parent companies (collectively &quot;Appellees&quot;) 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.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Sep 2023 14:26:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/DC-Circuit-Rejects-FTC-Appeal-Related-To-Alleged-Anticompetitive-Conduct-Stemming</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Direct Purchasers Defeat Merck&apos;s Motion For Summary Judgment In Monopolization Case Involving Mumps Vaccine Products
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Direct-Purchasers-Defeat-Merck-Motion-For-Summary-Judgment-In-Monopolization-Case</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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&apos;s motion for summary judgment in relation to a class action alleging that direct purchasers of Merck&apos;s mumps vaccines were overcharged as a result of Merck&apos;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&apos;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.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Aug 2023 20:54:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Direct-Purchasers-Defeat-Merck-Motion-For-Summary-Judgment-In-Monopolization-Case</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Putative Class Action Plaintiffs Defeat NCAA&apos;s Motion To Dismiss Sherman Act Claim
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Putative-Class-Action-Plaintiffs-Defeat-NCAA-Motion-To-Dismiss-Sherman-Act-Claim</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 27, 2023, Judge William Shubb of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied the National Collegiate Athletic Association&apos;s (NCAA) motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging in part that the NCAA and its member schools violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by conspiring not to compensate coaches defined as volunteer coaches under NCAA regulations.  Smart v. NCAA, No. 22-cv-02125 (E.D. Cal. July 27, 2023).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Aug 2023 16:22:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Putative-Class-Action-Plaintiffs-Defeat-NCAA-Motion-To-Dismiss-Sherman-Act-Claim</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Ninth Circuit Green Lights Flextronics&apos; Antitrust Suit Against Panasonic
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-Green-Lights-Flextronics-Antitrust-Suit-Against-Panasonic</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 21, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed an order from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissing Flextronics International USA Inc.&apos;s (&quot;Flextronics&quot;) antitrust lawsuit alleging that Panasonic and other Japanese electrical inductor companies conspired to fix and stabilize inductor prices.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Aug 2023 22:59:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-Green-Lights-Flextronics-Antitrust-Suit-Against-Panasonic</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Federal Judge Narrows Scope Of Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation In Anticipation Of Trial
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Federal-Judge-Narrows-Scope-Of-Broiler-Chicken-Antitrust-Litigation-In-Anticipation</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 30, 2023, U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin for the Northern District of Illinois partially granted defendants&apos; motion for summary judgment in a consolidated antitrust case alleging unlawful price-fixing in the broiler chicken industry.  In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litig., 1:16-cv-08637 (N.D. Ill. 2023).  Plaintiffs claim defendant broiler chicken producers raised the price of broiler chickens in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully agreeing to reduce the supply of chicken between 2008 and 2009 and 2011 and 2012.  The Court granted summary judgment in favor of seven defendants but denied the motions by 11 other defendants and allowed those claims to proceed to trial, citing differences in the amount of evidence expressly involving each defendant.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jul 2023 20:13:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Federal-Judge-Narrows-Scope-Of-Broiler-Chicken-Antitrust-Litigation-In-Anticipation</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Northern District Of Illinois Grants Motion To Dismiss In Antitrust Action
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-Illinois-Grants-Motion-To-Dismiss-In-Antitrust-Action</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 14, 2023, Judge Virginia M. Kendall of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed without prejudice consolidated private antitrust actions brought against Information Systems Audit and Control Association, Inc. (&quot;ISACA&quot;).  Riley v. Info. Sys. Audit &amp; Control Assoc., No. 22 C 4465, 2023 WL 3997075 (N.D. Ill. June 14, 2023).  Plaintiffs asserted claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and Section 7 of the Clayton Act alleging that defendant monopolized or conspired to monopolize the market for certain business process appraisals using defendant&apos;s proprietary methods.  The Court granted defendant&apos;s motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.  The Court held that plaintiffs failed to allege a relevant product market because the alleged market only consisted of defendant&apos;s product, and a company&apos;s own product generally &quot;do[es] not comprise a relevant product market.&quot;]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jul 2023 16:28:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-Illinois-Grants-Motion-To-Dismiss-In-Antitrust-Action</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>District Of Columbia Holds Later Complaint In Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge MDL Not Time-Barred
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/District-Of-Columbia-Holds-Later-Complaint-In-Rail-Freight-Fuel-Surcharge-MDL-Not-Time-Barred</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 21, 2023, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied defendant railroads&apos; motion to dismiss an allegedly time-barred complaint brought by a single plaintiff in a multidistrict litigation alleging a conspiracy to increase the price of rail freight transport.  In re:  Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation (No. II), 20-mc-00008-BAH, ECF No. 916, (D.D.C. June 21, 2023) (the &quot;Opinion&quot;).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jul 2023 16:23:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/District-Of-Columbia-Holds-Later-Complaint-In-Rail-Freight-Fuel-Surcharge-MDL-Not-Time-Barred</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>State Antitrust Enforcement Actions Exempt From Multi-District Litigations
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/State-Antitrust-Enforcement-Actions-Exempt-From-Multi-District-Litigations</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 5, 2023, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the &quot;Panel&quot;) held that recent changes to 28 U.S.C. &amp;sect; 1407(g), extending a limitation on multi-district consolidation to state-attorney-general complaints, applied to already pending cases and thus precluded the state-led antitrust actions against Google from proceeding with other cases in a multidistrict litigation.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jun 2023 16:58:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/State-Antitrust-Enforcement-Actions-Exempt-From-Multi-District-Litigations</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Banks Win Dismissal Of U.S. Silver Price-Fixing Litigation
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Banks-Win-Dismissal-Of-US-Silver-Price-Fixing-Litigation</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 22, 2023, Judge Caproni of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with prejudice a long-running litigation brought by plaintiff traders who in 2014 accused certain financial institutions of conspiring to periodically suppress a daily silver benchmark price set in London in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  In re London Silver Fixing, Ltd., Antitrust Litigation, 2023 WL 3582198 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2023).  Plaintiffs had accused the financial institutions of manipulating silver prices from 2007 to 2013.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jun 2023 19:36:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Banks-Win-Dismissal-Of-US-Silver-Price-Fixing-Litigation</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Third Circuit Affirms Denial Of Motion To Certify Indirect Purchaser End-Payor Class In Niaspan Antitrust MDL
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Third-Circuit-Affirms-Denial-Of-Motion-To-Certify-Indirect-Purchaser-End-Payor-Class</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 4, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit unsealed its April 24, 2023, Opinion upholding the Eastern District of Pennsylvania&apos;s denial of a motion to certify an indirect purchaser class of insurance plans and other end-payors allegedly injured by a &quot;reverse payment&quot; settlement that allegedly delayed the entry of a generic competitor to the brand-name prescription drug, Niaspan.  In Re:  Niaspan Antitrust Litigation, No. 21-2895 (3d Cir. Apr. 24, 2023).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jun 2023 16:16:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Third-Circuit-Affirms-Denial-Of-Motion-To-Certify-Indirect-Purchaser-End-Payor-Class</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Broadway Producer&apos;s Antitrust Claims Against Actors&apos; Union Barred By Federal Exemption
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Broadway-Producer-Antitrust-Claims-Against-Actors-Union-Barred-By-Federal-Exemption</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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&apos; union, the Actors&apos; Equity Association (&quot;AEA&quot;), 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&apos;s federal antitrust claims were barred by the statutory exemption for unions. Drabinsky v. Actors&apos; Equity Association, No. 22-CV-8933-LGS (S.D.N.Y.).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 09 May 2023 20:14:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Broadway-Producer-Antitrust-Claims-Against-Actors-Union-Barred-By-Federal-Exemption</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Amazon Wins Motion To Dismiss Antitrust Suit Because Plaintiffs Lacked Antitrust Injury
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Amazon-Wins-Motion-To-Dismiss-Antitrust-Suit-Because-Plaintiffs-Lacked</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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&apos;s linking of favorable website product placement for third-party sellers with the third-party sellers&apos; purchases of Amazon&apos;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&apos;s fulfillment services receive a &quot;Prime Badge&quot; and favorable product placement on Amazon&apos;s website in the &quot;Buy Box,&quot; the section of the product page through which plaintiffs claimed 90% of Amazon.com consumer purchases are made.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 09 May 2023 20:04:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Amazon-Wins-Motion-To-Dismiss-Antitrust-Suit-Because-Plaintiffs-Lacked</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Western District Of Washington Trims Some Claims, Keeps Others, In Most-Favored-Nation Litigation Against Amazon
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Western-District-Of-Washington-Trims-Some-Claims-Keeps-Others-In-Most-Favored-Nation</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 23, 2023, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington partially granted and partially denied Amazon&apos;s motion to dismiss a putative consumer class action alleging Amazon&apos;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).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Apr 2023 17:11:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Western-District-Of-Washington-Trims-Some-Claims-Keeps-Others-In-Most-Favored-Nation</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>FTC Orders Biotechnology Company To Divest Cancer Detection Test Maker
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/FTC-Orders-Biotechnology-Company-To-Divest-Cancer-Detection-Test-Maker</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On April 3, 2023, the United States Federal Trade Commission (the &quot;Commission&quot;) voted unanimously to issue an Opinion and Order requiring Illumina, Inc. (the &quot;Company&quot;), to divest GRAIL, Inc. (together the &quot;Parties&quot;). The Opinion reversed the Administrative Law Judge&apos;s (the &quot;ALJ&quot;) Initial Decision of September 1, 2022, which had dismissed the complaint brought by Commission staff alleging that the acquisition would reduce innovation and would likely harm competition.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Apr 2023 17:06:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/FTC-Orders-Biotechnology-Company-To-Divest-Cancer-Detection-Test-Maker</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Central District Of California Nixes Streaming Platform&apos;s Cartel Claims Against Popular Comedians
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Central-District-Of-California-Nixes-Streaming-Platform-Cartel-Claims-Against-Popular-Comedians</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On April 5, 2023, Judge Mark C. Scarsi of the Central District of California dismissed with prejudice a streaming service&apos;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).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Apr 2023 17:05:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Central-District-Of-California-Nixes-Streaming-Platform-Cartel-Claims-Against-Popular-Comedians</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Northern District Of California Dismisses Class Action Suit Against Social Networking Company Without Prejudice, Rejecting An Argument That Failing To Share Data Constitutes Anticompetitive Conduct
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Dismisses-Class-Action-Suit-Against-Social-Networking-Company</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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 &quot;Company&quot;) has a monopoly in the professional social networking market, which it protects through a barrier to entry comprising the Company&apos;s &quot;data centralization and aggregation, its machine learning and AI infrastructure, and the inferred data it produce[s].&quot; 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 &quot;monopoly broth&quot; 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.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2023 16:13:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Dismisses-Class-Action-Suit-Against-Social-Networking-Company</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Second Wave Of Resignations Following The Department Of Justice&apos;s Increased Scrutiny Of Interlocking Directorates
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Second-Wave-Of-Resignations-Following-The-Department-Of-Justice-Increased-Scrutiny</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
Following previous Clayton Act enforcement efforts prohibiting interlocking directorates, the Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) announced on Thursday, March 9, 2023, that five directors have resigned from overlapping board positions, and one company declined to exercise its board appointment rights. This marks the second wave of resignations since DOJ increased its scrutiny of interlocking directorates, bringing the total number of unwound or prevented interlocks to at least 13 directors across ten boards in less than six months.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2023 22:02:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Second-Wave-Of-Resignations-Following-The-Department-Of-Justice-Increased-Scrutiny</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Second Circuit Rules Exchange Traders Are Efficient Enforcers With Antitrust Standing In Precious Metals Benchmarking Case
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Rules-Exchange-Traders-Are-Efficient-Enforcers-With-Antitrust-Standing</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On February 27, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed and remanded the Southern District of New York&apos;s dismissal of antitrust claims alleging that defendants conspired to manipulate the market value of platinum and palladium. In re Platinum and Palladium Antitrust Litigation, No. 20-1458 (2d Cir. Feb. 27, 2023). The Second Circuit ruled that certain plaintiffs who traded futures contracts on an exchange were efficient enforcers with standing to sue under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, while traders in the physical markets for these metals were not efficient enforcers and lacked antitrust standing.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2023 21:41:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Rules-Exchange-Traders-Are-Efficient-Enforcers-With-Antitrust-Standing</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Second Circuit Finds Binding Trade Agreement Itself Sufficient To Allege Concerted Action
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Finds-Binding-Trade-Agreement-Itself-Sufficient-To-Allege-Concerted-Action</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 7, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated and remanded the lower court&apos;s dismissal of Relevant Sports, LLC&apos;s (&quot;Plaintiff&quot;) claim that United States Soccer Federation, Inc. (USSF) and F&amp;eacute;d&amp;eacute;ration Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) (&quot;Defendants&quot;) violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act&apos;s prohibition on unreasonable restraints of trade. Relevant Sports, LLC v. United States Soccer Federation, Inc., 2023 WL 2375884 (2d Cir. Mar. 7, 2023). The Second Circuit held that where an association rule itself is the alleged anticompetitive agreement challenged, the existence of a binding association rule is sufficient direct evidence of concerted action to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiff &quot;need not allege an antecedent agreement to agree&quot; to move forward on its antitrust claim.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2023 21:27:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Finds-Binding-Trade-Agreement-Itself-Sufficient-To-Allege-Concerted-Action</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>TV Broadcasters Fail To Compel Production From Ad Agencies And Other Plaintiffs Regarding Antitrust Standing And Market Definition
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/TV-Broadcasters-Fail-To-Compel-Production-From-Ad-Agencies-And-Other-Plaintiffs-Regarding-Antitrust</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On February 9, 2023, Judge Virginia Kendall of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a motion to compel discovery in a long-running dispute between major broadcasters and ad buyers who allege that the broadcasters conspired to fix the prices of local TV ads.  In re Local TV Advertising Antitrust Litigation, No. 18-6785 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 9, 2023).  In their discovery motion, defendant broadcasters had sought to compel production of material that the broadcasters claimed was necessary to challenge both the antitrust standing of two advertising agency plaintiffs and plaintiffs&apos; proposed definition of the relevant antitrust market.  Denying the motion to compel, the Court ruled that the information sought by the broadcasters was not sufficiently relevant to either issue.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2023 21:27:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/TV-Broadcasters-Fail-To-Compel-Production-From-Ad-Agencies-And-Other-Plaintiffs-Regarding-Antitrust</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Department Of Justice And State Attorneys General Sue Google For Alleged Monopolization Of Digital Advertising Technologies
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Department-Of-Justice-And-State-Attorneys-General-Sue-Google-For-Alleged-Monopolization</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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&apos;s search engine, they are not only inundated with popular search-engine results but with relevant advertisements.  In addition to search-engine advertisements, Google&apos;s tools are used by third-party websites to promote digital advertising.  Plaintiffs contend that website publishers rely on Google&apos;s digital-advertising products to sell advertisements and that advertisers depend on them to purchase advertisements.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2023 21:08:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Department-Of-Justice-And-State-Attorneys-General-Sue-Google-For-Alleged-Monopolization</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>FTC Loses Preliminary Injunction Bid In Challenge Of Technology Company&apos;s Acquisition Of Virtual Reality Fitness App Maker
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/FTC-Loses-Preliminary-Injunction-Bid-In-Challenge-Of-Technology-Companys-Acquisition</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 31, 2023, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied the Federal Trade Commission&apos;s (&quot;FTC&quot;) request for a preliminary injunction to block a technology company&apos;s (the &quot;Company&quot;) acquisition of a virtual reality fitness app maker (the &quot;Fitness App&quot;. The Court found that the FTC failed to show that the Company was reasonably likely to enter the virtual reality dedicated fitness app market absent the deal. Federal Trade Commission v. Meta Platforms Inc. et al., No. 5:22-CV-04325-EJD (N. D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2023).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2023 00:15:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/FTC-Loses-Preliminary-Injunction-Bid-In-Challenge-Of-Technology-Companys-Acquisition</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>D.C. District Court Sets Aside DOJ Civil Investigative Demand Barred By Prior Settlement Agreement
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/DC-District-Court-Sets-Aside-DOJ-Civil-Investigative-Demand-Barred-By-Prior-Settlement-Agreement</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 25, 2023, Judge Timothy J. Kelly of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted petitioner National Association of Realtors&apos; (&quot;NAR&quot;) Petition to Set Aside a Civil Investigative Demand (&quot;CID&quot;) issued by the United States Department of Justice&apos;s Antitrust Division (the &quot;Division&quot;) related to certain of NAR&apos;s practices and policies. National Association of Realtors v. United States, No. 21-2406 (TJK) (D.D.C. Jan. 25, 2023). The Court ruled that the Division was precluded from issuing the CID because it was substantially similar to two other CIDs that the Division had previously agreed to close in a settlement agreement.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2023 00:09:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/DC-District-Court-Sets-Aside-DOJ-Civil-Investigative-Demand-Barred-By-Prior-Settlement-Agreement</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Northern District of California Dodges Ninth Circuit Precedent, Allows Putative Consumer Class Action To Proceed With Some California State Law Antitrust Claims
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-of-California-Dodges-Ninth-Circuit-Precedent-Allows-Putative-Consumer-Class-Action</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
In 2020, the Ninth Circuit issued a landmark decision rejecting the Federal Trade Commission&apos;s antitrust claims challenging a chipmaker&apos;s (the &quot;Company&quot;) sale-and-licensing practices for its modem chips. FTC v. Qualcomm, 969 F.3d 974 (9th Cir.). In doing so, the Ninth Circuit left open the possibility that a claim under California state law (rather than federal law) could survive. This is that the case: various consumers brought a putative consumer class action challenging essentially the same conduct under California law. In re Qualcomm Antitrust Litig., No. 17-md-02773 (N.D. Cal.). On January 6, 2023, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California partially denied and partially granted the Company&apos;s motion to dismiss, ruling that the Ninth Circuit&apos;s decision only partially foreclosed Plaintiffs&apos; claims.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2023 00:46:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-of-California-Dodges-Ninth-Circuit-Precedent-Allows-Putative-Consumer-Class-Action</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Fifth Circuit Finds That Lawyer Committed Legal Malpractice By Filing Frivolous Antitrust Claims
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/5th-Circuit-Finds-That-Lawyer-Committed-Legal-Malpractice-By-Filing-Frivolous-Antitrust-Claims</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 13, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that a Texas lawyer committed legal malpractice by filing antitrust claims that lacked any reasonable factual or legal basis.  Lowe v. Gammon, 21-51234 (5th Cir. Jan. 13, 2023).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2023 17:01:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/5th-Circuit-Finds-That-Lawyer-Committed-Legal-Malpractice-By-Filing-Frivolous-Antitrust-Claims</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Sixth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of Aspiring NBA Player Agent&apos;s Suit Alleging NBPA And NBA Conspired To Prevent Him From Becoming An Agent
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Sixth-Circuit-Affirms-Dismissal-Of-Aspiring-NBA-Player-Agents-Suit-Alleging-NBPA-And-NBA-Conspired</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On December 30, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit unanimously affirmed the district court&apos;s dismissal of an aspiring National Basketball Association (NBA) player agent&apos;s suit against the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA) and the NBA.  Rosel C. Hurley III v. National Basketball Players Association, et al., No. 22-3038 (6th Cir. Dec. 30, 2022).  Plaintiff alleged that the NBPA and NBA conspired to exclude him from the marketplace for NBA player agents.  The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court&apos;s dismissal, because it viewed the NBPA and NBA&apos;s alleged actions as exempt from antitrust scrutiny under both the statutory and non-statutory labor exemptions to the Sherman Act.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2023 23:04:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Sixth-Circuit-Affirms-Dismissal-Of-Aspiring-NBA-Player-Agents-Suit-Alleging-NBPA-And-NBA-Conspired</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Bad Blood Between Customers And Ticketmaster, Taylor Swift Fans See Red, Hoping These Things Will Change
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Bad-Blood-Between-Customers-And-Ticketmaster-Taylor-Swift-Fans-See-Red</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On December 2, 2022, dozens of Taylor Swift fans sued Ticketmaster in California state court for, among other things, alleged state-law antitrust violations.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2022 23:41:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Bad-Blood-Between-Customers-And-Ticketmaster-Taylor-Swift-Fans-See-Red</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Alleged Price-Fixing Among Turkey Product Suppliers Through Industry Reporting And Trade Association Activity Survives Second Motion To Dismiss
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Alleged-Price-Fixing-Among-Turkey-Product-Suppliers-Through-Industry-Reporting-And-Trade</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 21, 2022, Judge Virginia Kendall of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a motion to dismiss an antitrust lawsuit alleging that ten turkey product suppliers coordinated pricing and reduced output though direct communications, trade association meetings, and industry reports provided by co-defendant Agri Stats, Inc. In re Turkey Antitrust Litig., No. 19-8318 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 21, 2022). The Court had previously dismissed as implausible an initial, single-paragraph allegation of a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The case proceeded, however, on plaintiffs&apos; separate allegations of improper exchanges of competitively sensitive information under the rule of reason. Over a year later and after completion of substantial discovery, plaintiffs amended their complaint to renew their per se claim. The motion to dismiss here only related to the per se violation. In denying the motion to dismiss, the Court ruled that plaintiffs&apos; complaint sufficiently alleged parallel conduct in the form of coordinated capacity reductions and price increases, as well as certain additional &quot;plus factors&quot; that could suggest an agreement among defendants.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2022 21:41:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Alleged-Price-Fixing-Among-Turkey-Product-Suppliers-Through-Industry-Reporting-And-Trade</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Fourth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of Broker&apos;s Suit Alleging Partners Conspired To Cut It Out Of Lucrative Military Procurement Deal
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Fourth-Circuit-Affirms-Dismissal-Of-Broker-Suit-Alleging-Partners-Conspired-To-Cut-It-Out</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 15, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit unanimously affirmed a district court&apos;s dismissal of a broker&apos;s suit against two aerospace contractors and South Korea alleging that they conspired to cut it out of a large, complex international military procurement transaction because the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and plaintiff&apos;s antitrust claims were untimely under the Clayton Act&apos;s four-year statute of limitations. Blenheim Capital Holdings Ltd. v. Lockheed Martin Corporation, No. 21-2104 (4th Cir. Nov. 15, 2022).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2022 21:15:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Fourth-Circuit-Affirms-Dismissal-Of-Broker-Suit-Alleging-Partners-Conspired-To-Cut-It-Out</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Maryland District Court Denies DOJ&apos;s Attempt To Halt Merger Based On Competition For A Single NSA Contract
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Maryland-District-Court-Denies-DOJs-Attempt-To-Halt-Merger-Based-On-Competition</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On October 11, 2022, Judge Catherine C. Blake of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied the U.S. Department of Justice&apos;s (&quot;DOJ&quot;) motion to preliminarily enjoin the $440 million acquisition of a company with expertise in specialized software development, cyber, and analytics by a larger consulting firm. Ruling that DOJ failed to show that the proposed transaction would cause anticompetitive harm in violation of federal antitrust laws, the Court was unwilling to grant the &quot;extraordinary remedy&quot; of blocking the merger and permitted the parties to close the transaction. United States v. Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. et al., No. 1:22-cv-01603 (D. Md. Oct. 11, 2022).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2022 14:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Maryland-District-Court-Denies-DOJs-Attempt-To-Halt-Merger-Based-On-Competition</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Fifth Circuit Rejects Hospital Operator&apos;s Antitrust Claims Against Dominant Medical Provider In Shreveport, Louisiana
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Fifth-Circuit-Rejects-Hospital-Operators-Antitrust-Claims-Against-Dominant-Medical-Provider</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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 &amp;sect; 1 and &amp;sect; 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).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2022 17:46:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Fifth-Circuit-Rejects-Hospital-Operators-Antitrust-Claims-Against-Dominant-Medical-Provider</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>United States District Court For The District Of Columbia Dismisses Antitrust Challenge To Healthcare Company&apos;s Acquisition Of Company That Provides Healthcare-Related Data Solutions
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/United-States-District-Court-For-The-District-Of-Columbia-Dismisses-Antitrust-Challenge</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 19, 2022, Judge Carl Nichols of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the Department of Justice and attorneys general of Minnesota and New York lawsuit to block UnitedHealth Group&apos;s proposed acquisition of Change Healthcare.  The Court found that the Government failed to meet its burden of proving that the transaction is likely to substantially lessen competition in any relevant healthcare market.  United States, et al. v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, et al., No. 1:22-cv-0481 (D.D.C, Sep. 19, 2022).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2022 16:26:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/United-States-District-Court-For-The-District-Of-Columbia-Dismisses-Antitrust-Challenge</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Sixth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of Antitrust Lawsuit Against Football Helmet Manufacturers
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Sixth-Circuit-Affirms-Dismissal-Of-Antitrust-Lawsuit-Against-Football-Helmet-Manufacturers</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 9, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court&apos;s dismissal of an antitrust lawsuit filed against defendants National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment (&quot;NOCSAE&quot;) and a group of football helmet manufacturers including Riddell, Inc., Kranos Corp., and Xenith, LLC.  Hobart-Mayfield, Inc. v. Nat&apos;l Operating Comm. on Standards for Athletic Equip., No. 21-1441 (6th Cir. Sept. 9, 2022).  The Court ruled that plaintiff Hobart-Mayfield, Inc.&apos;s (Mayfield) complaint alleging antitrust violations in the alleged football helmet market failed to state a claim for plausible relief and was properly dismissed by the trial court upon defendants&apos; Rule 12(b)(6) motion.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2022 19:16:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Sixth-Circuit-Affirms-Dismissal-Of-Antitrust-Lawsuit-Against-Football-Helmet-Manufacturers</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Eleventh Circuit Reverses District Court Dismissal On Shotgun Pleading And Standing Grounds
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eleventh-Circuit-Reverses-District-Court-Dismissal-On-Shotgun-Pleading-And-Standing-Grounds</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 26, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded a district court&apos;s dismissal of an antitrust lawsuit filed against Defendants Google LLC, YouTube Inc., and Alphabet Inc. on shotgun pleading and antitrust standing grounds.  Inform Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 21-13289 (11th Cir. Aug. 26, 2022).  The Court ruled that plaintiff Inform Inc.&apos;s amended complaint, while lengthy and perhaps unclear, sufficiently put defendants on notice of their alleged antitrust violations in the markets for online advertising and that plaintiff met the Eleventh Circuit&apos;s two-prong test for pleading antitrust standing.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2022 21:01:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eleventh-Circuit-Reverses-District-Court-Dismissal-On-Shotgun-Pleading-And-Standing-Grounds</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>United States District Court For The District Of Kansas Declines To Adopt The Co-Conspirator Exception To The Illinois Brick Direct Purchaser Rule In EpiPen Antitrust Litigation
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/united-states-district-court-for-the-district-of-kansas-declines-to-adopt-the-co-conspirator</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 8, 2022, Judge Daniel Crabtree of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas declined to apply the co-conspirator exception to the Illinois Brick direct purchaser rule in a case alleging a conspiracy to delay the entry of generic competition to a patented epinephrine auto injector (&quot;EpiPen&quot;), dismissing antitrust claims against defendant EpiPen manufacturers while allowing the claims against the defendant distributors from whom plaintiffs directly purchased EpiPens to proceed.  KPH Healthcare Services, et al. v. Mylan N.V., et al., No. 20-2065-DDC-TJJ (D. Ka. July 8, 2022).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2022 20:39:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/united-states-district-court-for-the-district-of-kansas-declines-to-adopt-the-co-conspirator</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Northern District Of California Certifies Class Of Direct Purchasers In Latest Development In Long-Running Cathode Ray Tube Price-Fixing Saga
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/northern-district-of-california-certifies-class-of-direct-purchasers-in-latest-development</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 1, 2022, Judge John S. Tigar of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California certified a class of direct purchasers in a long-running antitrust action alleging that manufacturers of cathode ray tubes conspired to fix prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The Court certified the class after concluding that plaintiffs&apos; claims were typical of the class and the sole defendant who has not settled with plaintiffs failed to identify any individualized issues that would predominate over issues common to the proposed class.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2022 20:21:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/northern-district-of-california-certifies-class-of-direct-purchasers-in-latest-development</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Generic Drug Manufacturer Barred From Bringing &quot;Sham&quot; Litigation Claim By Previous Settlement
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/generic-drug-manufacturer-barred-from-bringing-sham-litigation-claim</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 21, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit unanimously affirmed a district court judge&apos;s conclusion that a prior settlement released a claim by plaintiff, a generic pharmaceutical manufacturer (the &quot;Company&quot;), that defendants engaged in &quot;sham&quot; patent litigation to block it from launching a generic version of defendants&apos; brand-name drug.  Perrigo Co, et al. v. AbbVie Inc, et al., No. 21-3026 (3d Cir. Jul. 21, 2022).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Aug 2022 14:48:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/generic-drug-manufacturer-barred-from-bringing-sham-litigation-claim</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Seventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of Antitrust Claims Against Hospital And Insurance Provider
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Seventh-Circuit-Affirms-Dismissal-Of-Antitrust-Claims-Against-Hospital-And-Insurance-Provider</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 15, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a magistrate judge&apos;s conclusion that a health clinic, located within an Illinois hospital, did not suffer a cognizable antitrust injury by a hospital and insurance provider for agreeing to in-network status. Marion HealthCare, LLC v. Illinois Hosp. Servs., No. 20-1581, 2022 WL 2763502 (7th Cir. July 15, 2022).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2022 15:58:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Seventh-Circuit-Affirms-Dismissal-Of-Antitrust-Claims-Against-Hospital-And-Insurance-Provider</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Seventh Circuit Reverses Dismissal Of Monopolization Claim, Holding That Plaintiff Adequately Pled A Relevant Geographic Healthcare Market Under The &quot;Hypothetical Monopolist&quot; Test
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Seventh-Circuit-Reverses-Dismissal-Of-Monopolization-Claim-Holding-That-Plaintiff-Adequately-Pled</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 8, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court&apos;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).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2022 16:59:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Seventh-Circuit-Reverses-Dismissal-Of-Monopolization-Claim-Holding-That-Plaintiff-Adequately-Pled</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Round 2: Fifth Circuit Dismisses Antitrust Claims Against Standard-Essential Patent Holders, Withdrawing Prior Opinion Finding Plaintiff Lacked Standing
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Round-2-Fifth-Circuit-Dismisses-Antitrust-Claims-Against-Standard-Essential-Patent-Holders</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 21, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a decision dismissing Plaintiff Continental Automotive Systems&apos; claims challenging the alleged refusal of certain standard-essential patent holders and their licensors to issue the supplier patents on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (&quot;FRAND&quot;) 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).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2022 21:38:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Round-2-Fifth-Circuit-Dismisses-Antitrust-Claims-Against-Standard-Essential-Patent-Holders</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>District Judge Tosses States&apos; Disgorgement Claim Under Section 16 Of Clayton Act In Pricing Fixing Litigation
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/District-Judge-Tosses-States-Disgorgement-Claim-Under-Section-16-Of-Clayton-Act</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 7, 2022, Judge Cynthia M. Rufe of the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania partially granted and partially denied a motion to dismiss a claim for disgorgement under Section 16 of the Clayton Act brought by state attorney generals against 20 generic drug manufacturers alleging price fixing in generic drugs.  In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, 16-MDL-2724 (E.D. Pa. June 7, 2022).  The Court dismissed the state enforcers&apos; disgorgement claim, holding that Section 16 of the Clayton Act does not allow for relief for past conduct.  The Court denied the motion as to plaintiffs&apos; claims for prospective, non-monetary equitable relief, concluding that plaintiffs had parens patriae standing to pursue injunctive relief on behalf of their citizens, but not damages.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2022 19:13:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/District-Judge-Tosses-States-Disgorgement-Claim-Under-Section-16-Of-Clayton-Act</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Northern District Of Illinois Certifies Class In Alleged Broiler Price Fixing Conspiracy
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-Illinois-Certifies-Class-In-Alleged-Broiler-Price-Fixing-Conspiracy</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 27, 2022, in In Re Broiler Chicken Antirust Litigation, No. 16 C 8637, 2022 WL 1720468, at *10 (N.D. Ill. May 27, 2022), Judge Thomas M. Durkin of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois certified classes of direct purchasers, indirect purchasers, and end-user consumers (together, &quot;plaintiffs&quot;) in a Sherman Act lawsuit alleging that major broiler chicken producers conspired to limit chicken production to boost prices.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2022 18:33:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-Illinois-Certifies-Class-In-Alleged-Broiler-Price-Fixing-Conspiracy</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>No &quot;Sham,&quot; No Foul: Mattress Companies&apos; Agency Petitions Immune From Antitrust Liability, Finds District Of Utah
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/No-Sham-No-Foul-Mattress-Companies-Agency-Petitions-Immune-From-Antitrust-Liability</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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&apos;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&apos; antidumping petitions, which it found protected under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2022 15:33:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/No-Sham-No-Foul-Mattress-Companies-Agency-Petitions-Immune-From-Antitrust-Liability</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Northern District Of Illinois Rejects Home Buyer&apos;s Bid To Challenge Real Estate Broker Commission Rules As Anticompetitive
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-Illinois-Rejects-Home-Buyer-Bid-To-Challenge-Real-Estate-Broker</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 2, 2022, Judge Andrea R. Wood of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action complaint brought by a plaintiff home buyer against the National Association of Realtors (&quot;NAR&quot;) and a number of residential real estate brokerages alleging that certain NAR rules governing real estate brokers&apos; dealings with home sellers violated of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  Leeder v. The Nat&apos;l Ass&apos;n of Realtors, et al., No. 21-cv-00430, Dkt. No. 81 (N.D. Ill. May 2, 2022).  The Court held that, because the home buyer was not a direct purchaser of the brokerage services, which were the subject of a contract between the seller and the seller&apos;s broker, his claim was barred under Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2022 16:41:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-Illinois-Rejects-Home-Buyer-Bid-To-Challenge-Real-Estate-Broker</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Third Circuit Holds That A Concessions Vendor Does Not Have Antitrust Standing To Challenge An Exclusive Agreement Between An Airport And A Third-Party Beverage Company
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Third-Circuit-Holds-That-A-Concessions-Vendor-Does-Not-Have-Antitrust-Standing</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On April 27, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a concessions vendor did not have antitrust standing to challenge an exclusive beverage agreement between the Philadelphia International Airport and a third-party beverage company under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.  Host Int&apos;l, Inc. v. Marketplace, PHL, LLC, No. 20-2848 (3d Cir. Apr. 27, 2022).  Accordingly, the Court affirmed a district court ruling granting a motion to dismiss the concession vendor&apos;s antitrust claims.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 04 May 2022 20:48:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Third-Circuit-Holds-That-A-Concessions-Vendor-Does-Not-Have-Antitrust-Standing</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Ninth Circuit En Banc Panel Reinstates District Court Decision Certifying Three Subclasses Of Purchasers In Packaged Tuna Price-Fixing Class Action Lawsuit
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-En-Banc-Panel-Reinstates-District-Court-Decision-Certifying-Three-Subclasses</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On April 8, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed an earlier district court order that certified three subclasses of tuna purchasers in a class action lawsuit alleging that defendants violated federal and state antitrust laws.  Olean Wholesale Grocery Coop. Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, No. 19-56514, 2022 WL 1053459 (9th Cir. Apr. 8, 2022).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2022 14:54:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-En-Banc-Panel-Reinstates-District-Court-Decision-Certifying-Three-Subclasses</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>First Circuit Holds That Concerted Action By Independent Contractor Jockeys Seeking Better Pay Is Protected Conduct Under The Labor-Dispute Exemption
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/First-Circuit-Holds-That-Concerted-Action-By-Independent-Contractor-Jockeys-Seeking</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On April 4, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed a district court&apos;s ruling that a group of jockeys violated federal antitrust law by engaging in a group boycott and jointly refusing to participate in races in an effort to obtain better pay.  Confederacion Hipica de Puerto Rice, Inc. v. Confederacion de Jinetes Puertorriquenos, Inc., No. 19-2201 (1st Cir., April 4, 2022).  The First Circuit held that the jockeys&apos; status as independent contractors, rather than traditional employees, did not preclude them from claiming protection for their concerted action under the labor-dispute exemption to the antitrust laws because the issue in the dispute was labor-related.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2022 15:36:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/First-Circuit-Holds-That-Concerted-Action-By-Independent-Contractor-Jockeys-Seeking</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Ninth Circuit Revives SmileDirect Antitrust Suit
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-Revives-SmileDirect-Antitrust-Suit</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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 (&quot;SmileDirect&quot;) 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).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2022 17:46:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-Revives-SmileDirect-Antitrust-Suit</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Auto-Parts Supplier Lacks Standing To Bring Antitrust Claims Against Standard-Essential Patent Holders And Licensors Of Vehicular Wireless Connection Technology
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Auto-Parts-Supplier-Lacks-Standing-To-Bring-Antitrust-Claims-Against-Standard-Essential</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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 (&quot;FRAND&quot;) terms.  Cont&apos;l Auto. Sys., Inc. v. Avanci, LLC et al., No. 20-11032 (5th Cir. Feb. 28, 2022).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2022 14:10:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Auto-Parts-Supplier-Lacks-Standing-To-Bring-Antitrust-Claims-Against-Standard-Essential</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of Antitrust Allegations In DRAM Pricing Case
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-Affirms-Dismissal-Of-Antitrust-Allegations-In-DRAM-Pricing-Case</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 7, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims that the three largest manufacturers of dynamic random-access memory (&quot;DRAM&quot;) conspired to artificially inflate prices by restricting supply.  In re DRAM Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, 21-15125 (9th Cir. Mar. 7, 2022).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants conspired to simultaneously reduce the production of DRAM in order to drive up prices.  The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the claims because plaintiffs&apos; allegations did not rise to the level of plausibility required under Rule 12(b)(6).  The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the facts as alleged were not sufficient to establish that defendants&apos; alleged conduct was the result of a &quot;preceding agreement,&quot; rather than conscious parallel behavior.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Mar 2022 16:46:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-Affirms-Dismissal-Of-Antitrust-Allegations-In-DRAM-Pricing-Case</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>U.S. District Court For The Southern District Of Texas Dismisses Claims Against Three Largest U.S. Producers Of Steel
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/US-District-Court-For-The-Southern-District-Of-Texas-Dismisses-Claims-Against-Three</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On February 17, 2022, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed an antitrust suit against the country&apos;s largest steel manufacturers.  JSW Steel (USA) Inc. v. Nucor Corp. et al., 4:21-cv-01842 (S.D. Tex. 2022).  Plaintiff, JSW Steel (a finished-steel producer), alleged that Cleveland Cliffs Inc., Nucor Corp., and U.S. Steel Corp. violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act and various Texas state competition and contracts laws.  Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants colluded to increase the price of certain steel imports by lobbying for tariffs, while not being able to provide Plaintiff with equivalent steel products.  Plaintiff argued that its thriving business was crippled and eventually failed due to the collusive behavior of Defendants.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 2022 18:12:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/US-District-Court-For-The-Southern-District-Of-Texas-Dismisses-Claims-Against-Three</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>New Tennessee Case Alleges &quot;Archrivals&quot; Google And Facebook Secretly Conspired To Dominate The Worldwide Digital Advertising Market
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/New-Tennessee-Case-Alleges-Archrivals-Google-And-Facebook-Secretly-Conspired-To-Dominate</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2022 17:45:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/New-Tennessee-Case-Alleges-Archrivals-Google-And-Facebook-Secretly-Conspired-To-Dominate</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Northern District Of California Dismisses App Developer&apos;s Antitrust Claims Against Apple
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Dismisses-App-Developer-Antitrust-Claims-Against-Apple</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 7, 2022, Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed an app developer&apos;s claim that Apple, Inc.&apos;s operation of the Apple App Store had violated both state and federal antitrust laws.  Reilly v. Apple, Inc., No. 21-cv-04601 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2022).  The developer alleged that Apple had monopolized the market for iOS-app distribution (iOS is Apple&apos;s operating system).  The district court dismissed the case, holding that the app developer had failed to plausibly allege either a relevant market or an antitrust injury.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2022 18:35:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Dismisses-App-Developer-Antitrust-Claims-Against-Apple</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Eleventh Circuit Affirms That Seller Does Not Have Antitrust Claims Against Buyer For Post-Closing Conduct That Avoided Earnout Payment</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eleventh-Circuit-Affirms-That-Seller-Does-Not-Have-Antitrust-Claims-Against-Buyer</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 4, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a district court&apos;s dismissal of an antitrust suit filed by the sellers of a healthcare risk adjustment service company.  Ekbatani et al. v. Cmty. Care Health Network, LLC et al., No. 21-12322 (11th Cir. Jan. 4, 2022).  The sellers alleged that the buyer, who was a direct competitor, violated federal antitrust laws by intentionally reducing the company&apos;s revenue after closing.  That conduct, allegedly, resulted in the sellers&apos; loss of an &quot;earnout&quot; payment that was contingent upon the company&apos;s performance post-closing.  The three-judge panel affirmed that plaintiffs, the previous owners of the acquired business, did not have antitrust standing to bring their Clayton Act claim.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jan 2022 20:27:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eleventh-Circuit-Affirms-That-Seller-Does-Not-Have-Antitrust-Claims-Against-Buyer</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>U.S. District Court For The District Of Columbia Allows FTC&apos;s Second Attempt At Monopolization Claims Against Facebook To Go Forward
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/US-District-Court-For-The-District-Of-Columbia-Allows-FTC-Second-Attempt</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 11, 2022, Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied Facebook, Inc.&apos;s motion to dismiss the Federal Trade Commission (&quot;FTC&quot;) amended complaint alleging that Facebook Inc. monopolized the alleged market for personal social networking (&quot;PSN&quot;) services in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, finding that, in contrast to its original complaint, the FTC&apos;s amended complaint adequately alleged facts to support its proposed market definition and that defendant possessed monopoly power in that market.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jan 2022 18:26:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/US-District-Court-For-The-District-Of-Columbia-Allows-FTC-Second-Attempt</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Collusion In Telescope Market Was Clear To See, Finds Ninth Circuit
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Collusion-In-Telescope-Market-Was-Clear-To-See-Finds-Ninth-Circuit</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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&apos;s decisions, vacating and remanding only as to the amount of the settlement set-off.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Dec 2021 23:41:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Collusion-In-Telescope-Market-Was-Clear-To-See-Finds-Ninth-Circuit</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Supreme Court Denies Certiorari In State Hospital System Antitrust Immunity Case
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-Denies-Certiorari-In-State-Hospital-system-antitrust-immunity-case</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On December 6, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from a Fourth Circuit ruling that Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, a North Carolina hospital system doing business as Atrium Health, counted as an arm of the local government.  The Fourth Circuit&apos;s decision meant that Atrium was immune from antitrust liability, and the Supreme Court&apos;s decision leaves a potential circuit split on the status of dominant quasi-public hospital systems unresolved.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Dec 2021 23:38:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-Denies-Certiorari-In-State-Hospital-system-antitrust-immunity-case</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Northern District Of California Dismisses Sherman Act Complaint Against Platform Operator Based On Implausible Single-Brand Market Definitions And Failure To Allege Harm To Competition
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Dismisses-Sherman-Act-Complaint-Against-Platform-Operator</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 30, 2021, Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a putative class action alleging that the defendant smartphone supplier&apos;s contracts with mobile application (&quot;apps&quot;) developers and related guidelines violate Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act based on plaintiffs&apos; failure to allege a plausible relevant market or that they suffered antitrust harm.  Judge Chen also dismissed plaintiffs&apos; breach of contract, RICO, and fraud claims.  Coronavirus Reporter v. Apple Inc., No. 21-cv-05567-EMC (N.D. Cal. 2021).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Dec 2021 16:59:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Dismisses-Sherman-Act-Complaint-Against-Platform-Operator</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Fifth Circuit Blocks Topgolf Antitrust Suit For Lack Of Antitrust Injury
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Fifth-Circuit-Blocks-Topgolf-Antitrust-Suit-For-Lack-Of-Antitrust-Injury</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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&apos;s (&quot;Topgolf&quot;) 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 (&quot;SureShot&quot;) out of business in violation of Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.  SureShot Golf Ventures, Inc. vs. Topgolf International, Inc., 21-20132 (5th Cir. Nov. 15, 2021).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Nov 2021 15:37:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Fifth-Circuit-Blocks-Topgolf-Antitrust-Suit-For-Lack-Of-Antitrust-Injury</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Seventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of Section 1 Complaint Against Medical Board For Failure To Plead Facts Supporting Conspiracy Allegations
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Seventh-Circuit-Affirms-Dismissal-Of-Section-1-Complaint-Against-Medical-Board</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On October 8, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the Northern District of Illinois&apos; dismissal of a complaint alleging that a nonprofit provider of medical certifications violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by conspiring to restrain trade in the alleged nationwide market for medical care.  The three-judge panel found that plaintiff, an association of medical practitioners, alleged only conclusory claims against defendant and failed to plead adequate facts to state a claim for unlawful conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  Ass&apos;n of Am. Physicians &amp; Surgeons, Inc. v. Am. Board of Med. Specialties, No. 20-3072 (7th Cir. Oct. 8, 2021).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Nov 2021 15:17:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Seventh-Circuit-Affirms-Dismissal-Of-Section-1-Complaint-Against-Medical-Board</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>District Of New Jersey Rejects Claim Of Sham Patent Litigation
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/District-Of-New-Jersey-Rejects-Claim-Of-Sham-Patent-Litigation</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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 &amp; Indemnity Company v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 19-14146 (D.N.J. Oct. 27, 2021).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 2021 17:45:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/District-Of-New-Jersey-Rejects-Claim-Of-Sham-Patent-Litigation</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Ninth Circuit Affirms Denial Of Preliminary Injunction Against Arizona &quot;Dealer Data Security Law&quot;
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-Affirms-Denial-of-Preliminary-Injunction-Against-Arizona</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On October 25, 2021, a unanimous panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court order denying database vendors&apos; (&quot;Plaintiff-Appellants&quot;) motion for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Arizona&apos;s 2019 &quot;Dealer Data Security Law.&quot;  CDK Global LLC v. Brnovich, No. 20-16469 (9th Cir. 2021).  The Arizona law restricts car dealership database vendors from engaging in certain practices believed to be anticompetitive and provides consumers with certain additional privacy rights over the information that is collected for such databases.  The database vendors argued that the law was preempted by the federal Copyright Act and violated their federal constitutional rights.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Nov 2021 21:57:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-Affirms-Denial-of-Preliminary-Injunction-Against-Arizona</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Tech Start-Up&apos;s Monopoly Suit Moves Forward Against Utilities Management Power Player
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Tech-Start-Up-Monopoly-Suit-Moves-Forward-Against-Utilities-Management-Power-Player</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 30, 2021, Judge Amy Totenberg of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied a utilities management company&apos;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&apos;s motion to dismiss.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 2021 21:14:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Tech-Start-Up-Monopoly-Suit-Moves-Forward-Against-Utilities-Management-Power-Player</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>DOJ Says Agreement Not To Recruit And To Suppress Wages In Las Vegas Case Is Clearly Illegal
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Says-Agreement-Not-To-Recruit-And-To-Suppress-Wages-In-Las-Vegas</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On October 1, 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) filed a response in Nevada federal court opposing a motion to dismiss from defendants VDA OC LLC and its former regional manager Ryan Hee, in a case in which they are charged with agreeing with another unnamed contractor not to recruit or hire from one another, and to suppress wages for Las Vegas school nurses.  The DOJ stated that this is a simple case arguing that agreeing to allocate nurses is market division, and fixing nurses wages is price fixing, both of which have long been considered per se unlawful under the antitrust laws.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Oct 2021 18:18:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Says-Agreement-Not-To-Recruit-And-To-Suppress-Wages-In-Las-Vegas</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Ninth Circuit Reverses Certification Of A Nationwide Indirect Purchaser Class Due To State Law Differences And Its Prior Decision In FTC v. Qualcomm
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-Reverses-Certification-Of-A-Nationwide-Indirect-Purchaser-Class</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 29, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court&apos;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&apos;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 (&quot;Qualcomm&quot;) violated federal antitrust laws and California&apos;s Cartwright Act and Unfair Competition Law by engaging in certain corporate policies regarding their licensing of standard essential patents (&quot;SEPs&quot;) and related sales of modem chips.  The Ninth Circuit held that California&apos;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, &quot;have a clear interest in applying their laws to class members&quot; and to apply only California law would &quot;allow[] California to set antitrust enforcement policy for the entire country.&quot;]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2021 22:28:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-Reverses-Certification-Of-A-Nationwide-Indirect-Purchaser-Class</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Northern District Of California Finds That Antitrust Claims Against Technology Platform Fail While California&apos;s Unfair Competition Law Supports Limited Injunction
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Finds-That-Antitrust-Claims-Against-Technology-Platform</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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&apos;s developer policies violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and the Cartwright Act, California&apos;s analogue to the Sherman Act, as well as California&apos;s Unfair Competition Law (&quot;UCL&quot;).  The Court, in a 185-page opinion, found that plaintiff did not meet its burden to show that defendant&apos;s policies violated the antitrust laws and denied plaintiff the broad injunction that would have required substantial changes to defendant&apos;s App Store business.  However, the Court held that plaintiff was entitled to a limited injunction under the UCL as to defendant&apos;s anti-steering restrictions.  The Court also granted contract damages for defendant&apos;s counterclaims against plaintiff.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Sep 2021 16:18:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Finds-That-Antitrust-Claims-Against-Technology-Platform</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Eastern District Of Virginia Certifies Class Of Cholesterol Drug End Payors
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eastern-District-Of-Virginia-Certifies-Class-Of-Cholesterol-Drug-End-Payors</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 20, 2021, Judge Rebecca Smith of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia certified a class of end-payor plaintiffs (&quot;EPPs&quot;) alleging that defendant pharmaceutical companies (&quot;defendants&quot;) entered into a reverse payment agreement that delayed generic competition to the branded cholesterol drug Zetia in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  In re Zetia (Ezetimibe) Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2:18-md-2836 (E. D. Va. 2021).  This case is part of a multidistrict litigation against defendants, and Judge Smith&apos;s certification decision was in the face of a Fourth Circuit decision two weeks prior that vacated her decision to certify a different class of plaintiffs.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2021 18:02:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eastern-District-Of-Virginia-Certifies-Class-Of-Cholesterol-Drug-End-Payors</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Ninth Circuit Rejects Sherman Act Challenge To Non-Solicitation Provision In Contract Between Traveling Nurse Staffing Firms
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-Rejects-Sherman-Act-Challenge-To-Non-Solicitation-Provision</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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&apos;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).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2021 16:02:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-Rejects-Sherman-Act-Challenge-To-Non-Solicitation-Provision</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Northern District Of California Finds Exclusive Real Estate Service Is Improper Plaintiff To Enforce Antitrust Claims Against Competitor Trade Association
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Finds-Exclusive-Real-Estate-Service-Is-Improper-Plaintiff</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 16, 2021, Judge Vince Chhabria of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed, with prejudice, a complaint alleging that the dominant national real estate listing service violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by prohibiting realtors from marketing a property to the public unless they also list the property on the service.  Top Agent Network, Inc. v. National Ass&apos;n of Realtors, No. 20-cv-03198-VC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2021).  The Court found that, although plaintiff—a competing real estate listing service—may have alleged an antitrust violation, plaintiff did not have antitrust standing to bring the claim.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2021 18:54:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Finds-Exclusive-Real-Estate-Service-Is-Improper-Plaintiff</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Second Circuit Takes A Second Look At Chinese Vitamin C Price-fixing Case And Again Affirms Dismissal
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Takes-A-Second-Look-At-Chinese-Vitamin-C-Price-fixing-Case</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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&apos;s directive to &quot;carefully consider but not conclusively defer&quot; 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&apos;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 &quot;whether Chinese law required the Chinese sellers&apos; conduct.&quot;]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2021 17:05:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Takes-A-Second-Look-At-Chinese-Vitamin-C-Price-fixing-Case</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Southern District Of Illinois Refuses To Certify A Class Alleging That Jimmy John&apos;s No-Poach Clauses Suppressed Wages
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-Of-Illinois-Refuses-To-Certify-A-Class-Alleging-That-Jimmy-John</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 23, 2021, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois denied a named plaintiff&apos;s motion for class certification against Defendants Jimmy John&apos;s Franchise, LLC and Jimmy John&apos;s Enterprises, LLC on the basis that he did not meet the factors required to certify a class—among which included his failure to show that his claims where typical of the claims of the potential class members he purported to represent.  Conrad v. Jimmy John&apos;s Franchise, LLC, No. 18-CV-00133-NJR (S.D. Ill. July 23, 2021).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Aug 2021 17:21:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-Of-Illinois-Refuses-To-Certify-A-Class-Alleging-That-Jimmy-John</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Court Upholds Narrow Interpretation Of &quot;Sham Suit&quot; Exception To Noerr-Pennington  Doctrine
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Court-Upholds-Narrow-Interpretation-Of-Sham-Suit-Exception-To-Noerr-Pennington-Doctrine</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 26, 2021, Chief Judge Freda L. Wolfson of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed &quot;sham litigation&quot; 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&apos;s generic substitute for the patent holder&apos;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&apos;s infringement lawsuit was either objectively or subjectively baseless, the Court granted summary judgment for the patent holder.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Aug 2021 19:24:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Court-Upholds-Narrow-Interpretation-Of-Sham-Suit-Exception-To-Noerr-Pennington-Doctrine</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Delaware District Court Dismisses App Developer&apos;s Monopoly Claims Against Tech Giant
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Delaware-District-Court-Dismisses-App-Developers-Monopoly-Claims</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 9, 2021, Judge Leonard P. Stark of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted defendant&apos;s motion to dismiss antitrust claims brought by an application (&quot;app&quot;) developer against one of the world&apos;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).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2021 17:52:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Delaware-District-Court-Dismisses-App-Developers-Monopoly-Claims</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Fast-Food Franchise Cases Hash Out Standard Of Review For Labor Market Restrictions
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Fast-Food-Franchise-Cases-Hash-Out-Standard-Of-Review-For-Labor-Market-Restrictions</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
The parties in two separate cases involving labor market restrictions submitted supplemental briefing within days of one another following the Supreme Court&apos;s ruling in the much-anticipated NCAA v. Alston case on June 21, 2021.  The unanimous opinion, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch with a full concurrence by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, was levied to support arguments by both sets of defendants and plaintiffs on the appropriate standard of review in each of their cases.  This battle is being fought in a broader context of increased activity by the Department of Justice in pursuing &quot;no-poach&quot; agreements between employers, and President Biden&apos;s July 9th Executive Order, which specifically addressed labor non-compete agreements.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2021 19:41:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Fast-Food-Franchise-Cases-Hash-Out-Standard-Of-Review-For-Labor-Market-Restrictions</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Western District Of Pennsylvania Dismisses Antitrust Action For Failure To Adequately Define A Product Market
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Western-District-Of-Pennsylvania-Dismisses-Antitrust-Action-For-Failure</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 29, 2021, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissed Multiple Energy Technologies, LLC&apos;s (&quot;Plaintiff&quot;) Second Amended Complaint against Under Armour, Inc. (&quot;Defendant&quot;) for failure to adequately plead a relevant product market and granted Plaintiff leave to amend its complaint.  Multiple Energy Techs., LLC v. Under Armour, Inc., No. 2:20-CV-664-NR, 2021 WL 2661827 (W.D. Pa. June 29, 2021).  The Court found that a sufficient product market definition requires pleading facts that allege:  (1) high elasticity among all products within the alleged market; and (2) low elasticity between products within the alleged market and products outside the alleged market.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2021 14:16:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Western-District-Of-Pennsylvania-Dismisses-Antitrust-Action-For-Failure</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Dual Facebook Enforcement Actions Dismissed In District Of Columbia
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Dual-Facebook-Enforcement-Actions-Dismissed-In-District-Of-Columbia</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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 (&quot;FTC&quot;) and the attorneys general of 46 states and the District of Columbia (the &quot;state enforcers&quot;) against Facebook, Inc. (&quot;Facebook&quot;).  See FTC v. Facebook, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-03590-JEB (D.D.C. June 28, 2021), ECF 73 (the &quot;FTC Action&quot;); State of New York et al. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-03589-JEB (D.D.C. June 28, 2021), ECF 137 (the &quot;States&apos; Action&quot;).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2021 17:54:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Dual-Facebook-Enforcement-Actions-Dismissed-In-District-Of-Columbia</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Supreme Court Sustains Injunction Against NCAA Rules Limiting Education-Related Benefits Received By Student Athletes
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-Sustains-Injunction-Against-NCAA-Rules-Limiting-Education-Related-Benefits</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 21, 2021, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in a long running and closely watched dispute between the National Collegiate Athletic Association, along with 11 Division I conferences, (together, the &quot;NCAA&quot; or &quot;Defendants&quot;) and a class of current and former Division I football and basketball players claiming that NCAA restrictions on their compensation violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act (together, the &quot;student athletes&quot; or &quot;Plaintiffs&quot;).  NCAA v. Alston, et al., No. 20-512, 594 U.S. ___ (2021).  The Court&apos;s unanimous decision, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, upheld a district court order enjoining NCAA limits placed on education-related benefits provided by member schools to student athletes and permitting limits on compensation and benefits related to athletic performance.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2021 20:28:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Supreme-Court-Sustains-Injunction-Against-NCAA-Rules-Limiting-Education-Related-Benefits</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Northern District Of Illinois Terminates Claims Against Bank In Antitrust Suit
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-Illinois-Terminates-Claims-Against-Bank-In-Antitrust-Suit</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 1, 2021, Judge Thomas Durkin of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed a complaint alleging that a bank conspired with other defendants in the poultry industry in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  In re Broilers Chicken Antitrust Litig., 16-8637 (N.D. Ill. June 1, 2021).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jun 2021 19:55:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-Illinois-Terminates-Claims-Against-Bank-In-Antitrust-Suit</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Illinois District Court Finds Chicken Purchasers&apos; Conspiracy Claims Against Bank Are For The Birds
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Illinois-District-Court-Finds-Chicken-Purchaser-Conspiracy-Claims</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 1, 2021, Judge Thomas M.  Durkin of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted defendant&apos;s motion to dismiss price-fixing claims brought by a group of chicken buyers against a large bank operating in the agribusiness industry.  In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, No. 16 C 8637 (N.D.  Ill.  June 1, 2021).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2021 15:45:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Illinois-District-Court-Finds-Chicken-Purchaser-Conspiracy-Claims</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>D.C. Circuit Vacates FAA Decision That Failed To Consider Effect On Competition
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/DC-Circuit-Vacates-FAA-Decision-That-Failed-To-Consider-Effect-On-Competition</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 21, 2021, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated a decision by the Federal Aviation Administration (&quot;FAA&quot;) to retire takeoff and landing &quot;slots&quot; forfeited by Southwest Airlines (&quot;Southwest&quot;) at New Jersey&apos;s Newark Liberty Airport (&quot;EWR&quot;), finding that, by failing to consider what impact the move would have on airline competition at the airport, the FAA had acted arbitrary and capricious and without substantial evidence, in violation of the federal Administrative Procedures Act (&quot;APA&quot;).  Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg wrote the opinion, which was joined by Judges Karen L. Henderson and Justin R. Walker.  The case is Spirit Airlines, Inc. v. United States Department of Transportation, 19-1248 (D.C. Cir., May 21, 2021).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2021 17:44:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/DC-Circuit-Vacates-FAA-Decision-That-Failed-To-Consider-Effect-On-Competition</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Fifth Circuit Finds Sherman Act Conspiracy Claims Survive Statute Of Limitations Challenge
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Fifth-Circuit-Finds-Sherman-Act-Conspiracy-Claims-Survive-Statute</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 18, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a district court&apos;s dismissal of claims by the Academy of Allergy &amp; Asthma in Primary Care and United Allergy Services (&quot;plaintiffs&quot;) that Quest Diagnostics (&quot;Quest&quot;) violated &amp;sect;&amp;sect; 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.  Acad. of Allergy &amp; 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&apos;s co-conspirator referencing a meeting with a Quest employee provided sufficient evidence of an overt act to extend the statute of limitations period.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jun 2021 17:55:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Fifth-Circuit-Finds-Sherman-Act-Conspiracy-Claims-Survive-Statute</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Monopolization Complaint Dismissed For Failure To Adequately Define The Relevant Product Market Or Plead Anticompetitive Conduct
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Monopolization-Complaint-Dismissed-For-Failure-To-Adequately-Define</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 26 May 2021 18:25:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Monopolization-Complaint-Dismissed-For-Failure-To-Adequately-Define</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Impax Reaches Impasse As Fifth Circuit Denies Review Of FTC&apos;s First Post-Actavis Reverse Payment Ruling
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Impax-Reaches-Impasse-As-Fifth-Circuit-Denies-Review</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On April 13, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in an opinion authored by Judge Gregg Costa, affirmed the Federal Trade Commission&apos;s (&quot;FTC&quot;) order finding a reverse payment settlement between a branded drug manufacturer and a generic drug manufacturer violated the FTC Act and the Sherman Act.  Impax Laboratories, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 19-60394 (5th Cir. 2021).  The Court upheld the FTC administrative court&apos;s finding that the settlement agreement was anticompetitive because it &quot;replaced the &apos;possibility of competition with the certainty of none.&apos;&quot;]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 18 May 2021 17:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Impax-Reaches-Impasse-As-Fifth-Circuit-Denies-Review</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Northern District Of California Shuts Down App Developers&apos; Antitrust Suit
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Shuts-Down-App-Developers</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On April 26, 2021, Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a complaint alleging that Facebook violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by removing certain application interfaces that plaintiffs relied on for their mobile applications.  Reveal Chat Holdco LLC, et al. v. Facebook, 5:20-cv-00363 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged that the application programming interfaces (&quot;APIs&quot;) were central to their ability to function and that the removal of these APIs by Facebook in 2015 was part of a scheme to harm applications that were competitive or potentially competitive with Facebook.  In dismissing the complaint for a second time and with prejudice, the Court concluded that plaintiffs&apos; &quot;entire theory of liability is based on completed acts by Facebook beyond the limitations period&quot; and that their claims were therefore time-barred.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2021 16:36:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Shuts-Down-App-Developers</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>U.S. Supreme Court Unanimously Narrows The FTC&apos;s Enforcement Powers
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/US-Supreme-Court-Unanimously-Narrows-The-FTCs-Enforcement-Powers</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On April 22, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court abated the Federal Trade Commission&apos;s (&quot;FTC&quot;) restitution power in a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Stephen Breyer.  AMG Cap. Mgmt., LLC v. Fed. Trade Comm&apos;n, 141 S. Ct. 1341 (2021).  Notably, the Court declared that the language of Section 13(b) of the FTC Act does not empower the FTC to obtain court-ordered equitable monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement.  In so doing, the Court resolved a circuit split on the issue and reversed the Ninth Circuit&apos;s decision.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 04 May 2021 21:45:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/US-Supreme-Court-Unanimously-Narrows-The-FTCs-Enforcement-Powers</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>FTC&apos;s Cancer Detection Antitrust Suit Transferred To California Southern District
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/FTCrsquos-Cancer-Detection-Antitrust-Suit-Transferred-to-CA-Southern-District</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On April 20, 2021, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted defendants&apos; motion to transfer a motion for preliminary injunction brought by the Federal Trade Commission (&quot;FTC&quot;) alleging that defendants&apos; plans to enter into a merger agreement violated Section 5 of the FTC Act and Section 7 of the Clayton Act.  Federal Trade Commission v. Illumina, et al., No. 21-873 (D.D.C. 2021).  The Court found that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California was a more appropriate venue for litigation of the case on the basis that it would be easier for most of the witnesses to get to that district, among other factors.  Preliminary injunction hearings are currently set for August 24, 2021. ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2021 20:01:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/FTCrsquos-Cancer-Detection-Antitrust-Suit-Transferred-to-CA-Southern-District</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>California District Court Rules Antitrust Claims Against Hollywood Foreign Press Don&apos;t Make Final Cut
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/California-District-Court-Rules-Antitrust-Claims-</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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 (&quot;HFPA&quot;).  Flaa v. Hollywood Foreign Press Ass&apos;n, No. 2:20-cv-06974-SB (C.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2021).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Apr 2021 18:16:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/California-District-Court-Rules-Antitrust-Claims-</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Ninth Circuit Reverses Class Certification Based On District Court&apos;s Failure To Resolve Factual Issues Relating To Uninjured Class Members
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-Reverses-Class-Certification-Based-On</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On April 6, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated a district court order certifying three classes in a multi-district antitrust case alleging a price-fixing conspiracy by producers of packaged tuna, finding that the district court erred in determining that plaintiffs had satisfied to the predominance requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).  Olean Wholesale Grocery Coop v. Bumble Bee Foods, No. 19-56514 (9th Cir. Apr. 6, 2021).  Specifically, the Court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in declining to resolve whether plaintiffs&apos; proposed use of statistical evidence to establish classwide impact swept a substantial number of uninjured purchasers into the putative class.  A class cannot be certified, the Court held, when it contains more than a &quot;de minimis&quot; number of uninjured purchasers. ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Apr 2021 19:45:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-Reverses-Class-Certification-Based-On</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>NCAA Athletes&apos; Case Goes To Highest Court In The Land:  The Supreme Court Hears Argument On Sherman Act Challenge To NCAA Eligibility Rules On Compensation For Student-Athletes
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/NCAA-Athletesrsquo-Case-Goes-To-Highest-Court-In-Land</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 31, 2021, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in the consolidated cases National Collegiate Athletic Associate v. Alston (No. 20-520) and American Athletic Conference v. Alston (No. 20-512).  These cases were previously covered as part of our preview of the current Supreme Court term.  Plaintiffs below - NCAA student-athletes - challenged the NCAA&apos;s limits on education-related benefits to student athletes as unreasonable restraints on competition for the student-athletes&apos; services that violated Section One of the Sherman Act.  After a lengthy trial, the district court agreed and entered an injunction in favor of plaintiffs.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding that the district court had properly applied the rule of reason to the challenged rules, that the rules had significant anticompetitive effects, and that plaintiffs had established that less restrictive alternatives to the existing rules were viable in that they were &quot;virtually as effective&quot; in achieving the procompetitive purposes of the joint venture.  The case-specific issue presented to the Supreme Court is whether the Ninth Circuit erred in affirming the district court&apos;s judgment that the NCAA eligibility rules regarding compensation of student-athletes violated the Sherman Act.  But the case may have broader implications in how courts analyze a joint venture&apos;s restraints on competition under the rule of reason, including how courts should evaluate claims that a defendant joint venture could have or should have used less restrictive means to accomplish its procompetitive goal.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Apr 2021 20:15:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/NCAA-Athletesrsquo-Case-Goes-To-Highest-Court-In-Land</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Southern District Of New York Dismisses Antitrust Claims In U.S. Treasury Securities Action
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-of-New-York-Dismisses-Antitrust</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 31, 2021, Judge Paul Gardephe of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted defendants&apos; motions to dismiss antitrust claims alleging separate purported conspiracies to suppress competition in the trading of U.S. Treasury securities and to boycott competitive platforms for the trading of such securities.  In re Treasury Sec. Auction Antitrust Litig., No. 1:15-md-02673-PGG (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2021).  In so doing, the Court found that neither &quot;statistical analyses&quot; based on averages of all market participants&apos; conduct nor reports of government investigations was sufficient to plead the involvement in a conspiracy by an individual defendant that is required to overcome a motion to dismiss.   
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Apr 2021 19:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-of-New-York-Dismisses-Antitrust</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Southern District Of New York Dismisses Competitor&apos;s Sherman Act Claims Against Fintech Company For Lack Of Antitrust Standing
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-Of-New-York-Dismisses-Competitors</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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&amp;C Technologies Holdings Inc. (collectively &quot;defendant&quot;), 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 &quot;exclusive dealing arrangements&quot; 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 (&quot;plaintiff&quot;), a technology company that licensed defendant&apos;s portfolio accounting software, but competed with them in providing related &quot;post-trade solutions&quot; (technology and services used to provide middle- and back-office support for investment funds and fund administrators), failed to adequately plead antitrust standing. 
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Apr 2021 18:37:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-Of-New-York-Dismisses-Competitors</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>New Legislation In New York Addresses Expected Discontinuance Of LIBOR
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/New-Legislation-In-New-York-Addresses-Expected-</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 25, 2021, the New York State Legislature addressed the expected discontinuance of LIBOR by establishing that New York law-governed contracts without LIBOR fallback provisions will be deemed to use the replacement rate recommended by the Alternative Reference Rates Committee (ARRC).  The legislation will take effect immediately once signed into law by Governor Cuomo, which is expected to take place in the coming days.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Mar 2021 23:26:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/New-Legislation-In-New-York-Addresses-Expected-</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Second Circuit Rejects The &quot;Nullity Doctrine&quot; In Benchmarking Antitrust Case
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Reject-the-Nullity-Doctrine</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 17, 2021, the Second Circuit vacated a district court&apos;s dismissal of a putative class antitrust action, holding that the pre-lawsuit dissolution of the named plaintiffs does not render the action a legal nullity and deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction, provided the assignee of their claims had standing to prosecute the claims as the real party in interest when the suit was filed and joins or substitutes into the action within a reasonable time.  Fund Liquidation Holdings LLC v. Bank of Am. Corp., 2021 WL 1010596 (2d Cir. Mar. 17, 2021).
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2021 22:13:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Reject-the-Nullity-Doctrine</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Maryland District Court Refuses To Send Poultry Workers&apos; Claims To Chopping Block In Wage Fixing Class Action
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Maryland-District-Court-Refuses-To-Send-Poultry-Workers-Claim</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 10, 2021, Judge Stephanie Gallagher of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied defendants&apos; motions to dismiss antitrust claims brought by a putative class of poultry workers asserting that poultry processing companies unlawfully exchanged compensation data and conspired to fix and depress employee wages.  Jien v. Perdue Farms, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-2521-SAG (D. Md. March 10, 2021).
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2021 19:50:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Maryland-District-Court-Refuses-To-Send-Poultry-Workers-Claim</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Third Circuit Dismisses Sherman Act And RICO Claims Against Certification Board
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Third-Circuit-Dismisses-Sherman-Act-And-RICO-Claims</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On February 25, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a district court&apos;s ruling that the American Board of Internal Medicine (&quot;defendant&quot;) did not violate Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act or the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (&quot;RICO&quot;).  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 (&quot;plaintiffs&quot;) 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 (&quot;MOC&quot;).  The Third Circuit also found that plaintiffs did not plausibly allege that defendant utilized monopoly power to require plaintiffs to purchase MOCs.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2021 20:46:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Third-Circuit-Dismisses-Sherman-Act-And-RICO-Claims</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Fourth Circuit Affirms Lower Court&apos;s First Of Its Kind Divesture Order In Private Challenge To Merger
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Fourth-Circuit-Three-Judge-Panel-Affirms-Lower-Courts-First-Of-Its-Kind-Divesture-Order</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On February 18, 2021, the Fourth Circuit affirmed in relevant part a district court&apos;s divestiture order in a Clayton Act challenge to a consummated merger by a private party.  Steves &amp; Sons, Inc. v. JELD-WEN, Inc., No. 19-1397, 2021 WL 630521 (4th Cir. Feb. 18, 2021).  The divestiture order appears to be the first time that an appellate court has affirmed a post-consummation divestiture order of an acquired company in response to a Clayton Act challenge to a merger or acquisition by a private party.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2021 22:27:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Fourth-Circuit-Three-Judge-Panel-Affirms-Lower-Courts-First-Of-Its-Kind-Divesture-Order</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>District Court Grants Summary Judgment Against Indirect Purchasers In Aluminum Price-Fixing Case
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/District-Court-Grants-Summary-Judgement-Against-Indirect-Purchasers-In-Aluminum</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On February 17, 2021, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment to defendants that traded commodities and derivatives, and defendants that owned and operated warehouses, in a consolidated action, dismissing claims by aluminum purchasers.  In Re Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litigation, 13 MD 2481 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.  Feb. 17, 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged defendants had conspired to fix the price of aluminum in a distribution channel in which plaintiffs (with one exception) did not participate, but that the conspiracy had the incidental effect of inflating the cost of plaintiffs&apos; contracts with third parties, most notably aluminum producers.  Plaintiffs asserted that even though they did not participate directly in the allegedly restrained distribution channel, they could pursue a claim that defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The Court held that plaintiffs were not efficient enforcers, and therefore lacked &quot;antitrust standing&quot; to bring the claims, because they did not contract directly with defendants, their claimed harms were speculative, and their claims risked exposing defendants to duplicative liability.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2021 20:14:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/District-Court-Grants-Summary-Judgement-Against-Indirect-Purchasers-In-Aluminum</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Central District Of California Forecloses Realtors&apos; Antitrust Suit
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Central-District-Of-California-Forecloses-Realtors-Antitrust-Suit</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On February 3, 2021, Judge John W. Holcomb of the United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed a complaint alleging that real estate listing services conspired with a national realtors association to exclude a competitor from the market.  The PLS.com, LLC v. The National Association of Realtors, et al., 2:20-cv-04790 (C.D. Ca.  Feb. 3, 2021).  Plaintiff, a listing service for off-market properties, alleged that three real estate listing services—Bright MLS, Inc. (&quot;BrightMLS&quot;), Midwest Real Estate Data, LLC (&quot;Midwest RED&quot;), and California Regional Multiple Listing Service, Inc. (&quot;Cal Regional MLS&quot;)—conspired with The National Association of Realtors (&quot;NAR&quot;) to eliminate them from the market in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and California&apos;s Cartwright Act.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2021 19:32:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Central-District-Of-California-Forecloses-Realtors-Antitrust-Suit</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Courts Finds It Lacks Jurisdiction To Entertain Challenge To FTC Civil Investigative Demand
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Courts-Finds-It-Lacks-Jurisdiction-To-Entertain-Challenge-to-FTC</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On February 3, 2021, Judge R. David Proctor of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama granted the Federal Trade Commission&apos;s motion to dismiss a complaint filed by the Board of Dental Examiners of Alabama (&quot;Board&quot;) seeking to enjoin a Civil Investigative Demand (&quot;CID&quot;) that the FTC had issued to the Board.  Bd. of Dental Exam&apos;rs of Ala. v. Fed. Trade Comm&apos;n, Case No. 2:20-cv-1310-RDP (N.D. Ala. 2021).  The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because the Board failed to meet the final agency action and exhaustion requirements. ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2021 23:41:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Courts-Finds-It-Lacks-Jurisdiction-To-Entertain-Challenge-to-FTC</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Fourth Circuit Panel Reaffirms State Immunity From Sherman Antitrust Liability
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Fourth-Circuit-Panel-Reaffirms-State-Immunity-From-Shearman-Antitrust-Liability</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 19, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims brought by Western Star Hospital Authority, Inc. (&quot;Metro Heath&quot;), an ambulance company, against the City of Richmond, Virginia and the Richmond Ambulance Authority (&quot;RAA&quot;), a public monopoly, under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2021 19:40:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Fourth-Circuit-Panel-Reaffirms-State-Immunity-From-Shearman-Antitrust-Liability</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Third Circuit Requires Patent Validity Analysis In Adjudicating Antitrust Causation
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Third-Circuit-Requires-Patent-Validity-Analysis-In-Adjudicating</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 11, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated a district court order granting defendants&apos; summary judgment motion, finding that the court erred in concluding that defendants&apos; patent position barred plaintiff&apos;s antitrust damages claims without evaluating plaintiff&apos;s challenges to the patent&apos;s validity and infringement as to plaintiff&apos;s product.  Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC v. Par Sterile Prods., LLC, No. 20-1618, 2021 WL 80616 (3d Cir. Jan. 11, 2021).  Where the defendant has raised its patent rights as a defense to the assertion of antitrust damages, the Third Circuit held, a court must analyze the plaintiff&apos;s challenges to validity and infringement of the patent regardless of whether patent litigation or a Food and Drug Administration (&quot;FDA&quot;) application relating to the product has been filed.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2021 21:44:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Third-Circuit-Requires-Patent-Validity-Analysis-In-Adjudicating</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Revised Market Definition For Patents Still Fails To State Plausible Claims Against Investment Manager
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Revised-Market-Definition-For-Patents-Still-Fails-To-State-Plausible-Claims</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 6, 2020, Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted defendants&apos; motion to dismiss.  Intel Corp., et al. v. Fortress Investment Group LLC, et al., No. 19-cv-07651-EMC (N. D. Ca. 2021).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants conspired to aggregate and assert essential patents against plaintiffs, which harmed competition in 13 alleged markets for patented technologies.  Plaintiffs asserted this conduct violated Sherman Act &amp;sect; 1, Clayton Act &amp;sect; 7, as well as unfair competition law under state and FTC statutes.  The Court dismissed plaintiffs&apos; complaint with prejudice as to the FTC Act claim as well as the other claims as they related to several product markets.  It dismissed without prejudice claims as to the other markets to the extent plaintiffs could further amend their claims.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2021 20:35:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Revised-Market-Definition-For-Patents-Still-Fails-To-State-Plausible-Claims</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Eastern District Of Pennsylvania Allows Hospital Merger To Proceed
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eastern-District-Of-Pennsylvania-Allows-Hospital-Merger</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On December 14, 2020, Judge Gerald Pappert of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the Federal Trade Commission&apos;s (&quot;FTC&quot;) emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal.  Federal Trade Commission, et al. v. Thomas Jefferson University, et al., 2:20-cv-01113 (E.D. Pa.  Dec. 14, 2020).  The decision comes after the district court, on December 8, denied the FTC&apos;s request to enjoin Jefferson Health from acquiring Albert Einstein Healthcare Network.  The FTC has appealed the December 8 decision and sought an injunction pending that appeal to prevent the acquisition from going forward on December 15 in accordance with the stipulated terms of a prior temporary restraining order entered in the case.  The Court denied the FTC&apos;s motion, explaining that the emergency motion—rather than maintaining the status quo—would alter the parties&apos; circumstances by imposing an injunction where there was none.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2020 20:11:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eastern-District-Of-Pennsylvania-Allows-Hospital-Merger</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Defendants Cannot Crack Peanut Farmers&apos; Class Certification Motion
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Defendants-Cannot-Crack-Peanut-Farmers-Class-Certification</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On December 1, 2020, Judge Raymond A. Jackson of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted plaintiff peanut farmers&apos; motion for class certification against defendant peanut shelling companies.  D&amp;M Farms, et al. v. Birdsong Corp., et al., No. 2:19-cv-463 (E. D. Va. 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants conspired to lower the price of peanuts since as early as January 2014 in violation of Sherman Act &amp;sect; 1.  The court certified plaintiffs&apos; proposed class after finding the facts submitted by plaintiffs and plaintiffs&apos; expert analysis satisfied the class certification requirements.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2020 21:02:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Defendants-Cannot-Crack-Peanut-Farmers-Class-Certification</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>California District Court Cuts Cord On Subcontractor&apos;s Antitrust Claims Against Cable Provider
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/California-District-Court-Cuts-Cord-On-Subcontractors-Antitrust-Claims</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 17, 2020, Judge Troy Nunley of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted summary judgment for Comcast, dismissing claims brought by a cable installation subcontractor alleging that Comcast engaged in unlawful anticompetitive activity in violation of state antitrust laws.  Clear Connection Corp. v. Comcast Cable Commc&apos;ns. Mgmt., LLC, No. 2:12-cv-02910-TLN-DB (E.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2020).
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2020 18:41:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/California-District-Court-Cuts-Cord-On-Subcontractors-Antitrust-Claims</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Central District Of California Dismisses Sherman Act Claims Involving Alleged Los Angeles Outdoor Advertising Market
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Central-District-Of-California-Dismisses-Sherman-Act-Claims-Involving-Alleged-Los-Angeles</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 9, 2020, the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted defendant Outfront Media Inc.&apos;s (&quot;Outfront&quot;) motion to dismiss claims that Outfront engaged in an illegal conspiracy to stifle competition and maintain &quot;monopolistic control&quot; 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. (&quot;VMG&quot;) 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.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2020 19:57:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Central-District-Of-California-Dismisses-Sherman-Act-Claims-Involving-Alleged-Los-Angeles</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Anti-Competitive Effects Suit Against Tyson Chicken To Proceed To Trial
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Anti-Competitive-Effects-Suit-Against-Tyson-Chicken</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On October 27, 2020, Judge Joseph McKinley Jr. of the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky granted in part and denied in part Tyson&apos;s motion for summary judgment.  Charles Morris, et al v. Tyson Chicken Inc., et al., 4:15-cv-00077 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 27, 2020).  Plaintiffs, growers of chicken broilers who contract with Tyson for the supply of chicken, sued alleging a number of violations under the Packers and Stockyards Act (&quot;PSA&quot;), as well as numerous contract claims.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2020 18:44:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Anti-Competitive-Effects-Suit-Against-Tyson-Chicken</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Third Time&apos;s Not A Charm:  California District Court Dismisses Consolidated Class Action Against German Automakers
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Third-Timers-Not-A-Charm-California-District-Court-Dismisses-Consolidated</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On October 23, 2020, District Judge Charles Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice Sherman Act claims in two consolidated complaints brought by consumers (indirect purchasers or IPPs) and auto-dealers (direct purchasers or DPPs) (together Plaintiffs).  The complaints alleged anticompetitive standardization of diesel emissions control systems and price-fixing by the five leading German car manufacturers in the United States—Audi AG, BMW AG, Daimler AG, Porsche AG, and Volkswagen AG (Defendants) for models made between 2006 through 2016.  In re:  German Automotive Manufacturers Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2796 CRB (JSC) (N.D.Cal. Oct. 23, 2020).  Ultimately, the Court found that Plaintiffs failed to allege a &quot;relevant market&quot; and that Defendants had power within that market.  The Court had granted Defendants&apos; motions against the same Plaintiffs on two prior occasions and thus granted the present motion with prejudice so that Plaintiffs would not get a fourth bite at the apple.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2020 18:20:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Third-Timers-Not-A-Charm-California-District-Court-Dismisses-Consolidated</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Northern District Of California Engages In Tech Companies&apos; Fortnite Battle
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Engages-In-Tech-Companies-Fortnite-Battle</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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&apos; 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 (&quot;Epic&quot;) sought to reinstate its popular video game, Fortnite, to the Apple App Store and to regain its access to Apple&apos;s developer tools.  The Court declined to reinstate Fortnite to Apple&apos;s App Store, but ordered Apple to allow Epic&apos;s corporate affiliates access to its developer tools.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2020 17:20:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Engages-In-Tech-Companies-Fortnite-Battle</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Fifth Circuit Reverses Decision Of Immediate Appealability Of State Action Immunity Defense
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Fifth-Circuit-Reverses-Decision-Of-Immediate-Appealability-Of-State-Action</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On October 2, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a district court&apos;s ruling staying an administrative proceeding brought by the Federal Trade Commission (the &quot;FTC&quot;) against the Louisiana Real Estate Appraisers Board (the &quot;Board&quot;).  Louisiana Real Estate Appraisers Bd. v. United States Fed. Trade Comm&apos;n, No. 19-30796, 2020 WL 5869072 (5th Cir. Oct. 2, 2020).  The Fifth Circuit found that the district court lacked jurisdiction to stay the FTC proceeding because the Commission&apos;s order denying the Board immunity under the state action doctrine did not constitute final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, nor did the collateral order doctrine apply.  The practical effect of the ruling is the Board will be forced to defend its challenged regulation in the FTC proceeding before taking an appeal.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2020 19:04:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Fifth-Circuit-Reverses-Decision-Of-Immediate-Appealability-Of-State-Action</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Northern District Of Illinois Allows Price-Fixing Claim Against National Association Of Realtors To Proceed
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-Illinois-Allows-Price-Fixing-Claim</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On October 2, 2020, Judge Andrea R. Wood of the Northern District of Illinois denied related motions to dismiss filed by the National Association of Realtors (&quot;NAR&quot;) and certain corporate defendants who are among the largest real estate brokers in the United States (the &quot;Corporate Defendants&quot; and, collectively with NAR, &quot;Defendants&quot;), which sought to avoid a price-fixing suit brought by a putative class of home sellers under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  Moehrl v. The National Association of Realtors, No. 19-cv-01610 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 2, 2020).  In denying Defendants&apos; motions, the Court noted (among other things) allegations that the Corporate Defendants required its franchisees, affiliates, and realtors to join the NAR and follow the NAR&apos;s rules, including rules for broker commissions.  The Court found that this conduct plausibly demonstrated the existence of a conspiracy among the Corporate Defendants, NAR, and other non-parties to impose sales commission rules that could result in unfair charges to home sellers.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2020 16:36:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-Illinois-Allows-Price-Fixing-Claim</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Third Circuit Reverses $448 Million FTC Penalty Imposed Against Generic Pharmaceutical Manufacturers
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Third-Circuit-Reverses-448-Million-FTC-Penalty-Imposed-Against-Generic-Pharmaceutical</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 30, 2020, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit made up of Judges Thomas M. Hardiman, David J. Porter, and Peter J. Phipps reversed a court-ordered disgorgement penalty of $448 million, holding that disgorgement is not an available remedy under Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission (&quot;FTC&quot;) Act.  Fed. Trade Comm&apos;n v. AbbVie Inc., No. 18-2621, 2020 WL 5807873 (3d Cir. Sept. 30, 2020).  Respondents AbbVie, Inc., Abbott Laboratories, Unimed Pharmaceuticals LLC, and Besins Healthcare, Inc. (collectively &quot;Respondents&quot;) are patent owners of a testosterone replacement therapy drug called AndroGel.  Appellant FTC sued Respondents in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 53(b)), which provides a mechanism for the FTC to seek injunctive relief in connection with Respondents&apos; lucrative sale of AndroGel. 
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2020 18:25:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Third-Circuit-Reverses-448-Million-FTC-Penalty-Imposed-Against-Generic-Pharmaceutical</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Tech Startup&apos;s Antitrust Claims Against Professional Networking Site Don&apos;t Get The Job Done
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Tech-Startuprsquos-Antitrust-Claims-Against-Professional-Networking-Site</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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).
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2020 15:55:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Tech-Startuprsquos-Antitrust-Claims-Against-Professional-Networking-Site</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>U.S. District Court Dismisses Auto Parts Maker&apos;s Antitrust Claims Against Wireless Patent Pool
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/US-District-Court-Dismisses-Auto-Parts-Makers-Antitrust-Claims</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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&apos;s antitrust lawsuit against a group of holders of standard-essential patents (&quot;SEPs&quot;) used in wireless telecommunications and their joint licensing agent Avanci LLC, rejecting claims that defendants&apos; 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&apos;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&apos;s licensing practices for its SEPs.  It is also consistent with the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division&apos;s July 28, 2020 favorable business review letter addressing Avanci&apos;s 5G patent licensing platform.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2020 14:58:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/US-District-Court-Dismisses-Auto-Parts-Makers-Antitrust-Claims</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>California State Court of Appeals Reverses Award For Antitrust &quot;Circuit Dealing&quot; Allegations
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/California-State-Court-of-Appeals-Reverses-Award-For-Antitrust</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 2, 2020, a three-judge panel on the California State Court of Appeals Second Appellate District reversed a jury&apos;s award in favor of Flagship Theatres of Palm Desert, LLC (&quot;Plaintiff&quot;) under California&apos;s Cartwright Act.  Flagship Theatres of Palm Desert, LLC v. Century Theatres, Inc., No. B292609, 2020 WL 5229369, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 2, 2020).  Plaintiff sued rival theaters Century Theatres, Inc. and Cinemark USA, Inc. (&quot;Defendants&quot;) in Coachella Valley, California in connection with their &quot;circuit dealing&quot; agreements with movie distributors.  The court found that the elimination of a single competitor is not sufficient evidence of harm to competition to sustain a verdict under the Cartwright Act.  
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2020 19:24:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/California-State-Court-of-Appeals-Reverses-Award-For-Antitrust</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Northern District Of California Rejects Plaintiffs&apos; Request To Challenge Approval Of Class Settlement That Excluded Them
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Rejects-Plaintiffs-Request-To-Challenge-Approval-Of-Class-Settlement</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 27, 2020, Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied a motion to intervene filed by two subclasses of indirect cathode ray tube purchasers (&quot;Non-Settling Plaintiffs&quot;) that would have allowed them to derail a $500 million settlement between 22 state classes of indirect purchasers (&quot;Settling Plaintiffs&quot;) and seven cathode ray tube manufacturers (&quot;Settling Defendants&quot;).  The Non-Settling Plaintiffs sought intervention in order to appeal the District Court&apos;s final approval of the settlement.  The decision is In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., No. 07-cv-05944-JST (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2020).
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2020 18:24:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Rejects-Plaintiffs-Request-To-Challenge-Approval-Of-Class-Settlement</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Eastern District Of Virginia Wades Into &quot;Grey Area&quot;; Certifies Class Of Thirty-Five Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eastern-District-Of-Virginia-Wades-Into-Grey-Area</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2020 14:04:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eastern-District-Of-Virginia-Wades-Into-Grey-Area</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Ninth Circuit Delivers A Defeat To The FTC And Holds That Technology Company&apos;s Licensing Practices Are Not Illegal
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-Delivers-A-Defeat-To-The-FTC-And-Holds-That-Technology-Companys-Licensing-Practices</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 11, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned a decision by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California finding that the Federal Trade Commission had proven that the technology company&apos;s (the &quot;Company&quot;) patent licensing practices violated the antitrust laws.  FTC v. Qualcomm Corp., __ F.3d __, Case No. 19-16122, 2020 WL 4591476 (9th Cir. Aug. 11, 2020).  The panel included Judges Rawlinson and Callahan of the Ninth Circuit, and Judge Murphy of the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.  While the Ninth Circuit&apos;s opinion involves some complex issues involving technology markets and patent law, at a higher level, this opinion&apos;s critical antitrust findings reaffirm that businesses are free to independently choose with whom to deal, the terms upon which they will do so and that mere profit-seeking conduct is not illegal.  The opinion further makes plain that to establish the element of harm to competition, plaintiff&apos;s theory of harm, its market definition, and its proof of alleged anticompetitive effects must be consistent.  Where the alleged anticompetitive effects are not established to have occurred within the properly defined, relevant market, a plaintiff&apos;s claim should be rejected.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2020 19:20:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-Delivers-A-Defeat-To-The-FTC-And-Holds-That-Technology-Companys-Licensing-Practices</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Sports Promoter Misses Goal In SDNY Antitrust Case Against US Soccer
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Sports-Promoter-Misses-Goal-In-SDNY-Antitrust-Case-Against-US-Soccer</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 20, 2020, United States District Judge Valerie Caproni of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed antitrust claims brought by a soccer promoter against the United States Soccer Federation (&quot;USSF&quot;), which alleged that USSF entered into anticompetitive agreements to block plaintiff from hosting international soccer matches in the United States.  Relevent Sports, LLC v. United States Soccer Federation, Inc., No. 19-CV-8359 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2020).
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2020 18:23:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Sports-Promoter-Misses-Goal-In-SDNY-Antitrust-Case-Against-US-Soccer</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>The Supreme Court Of California Clarifies The Legal Standards For Economic Torts And For California Business &amp; Professions Code Section 16600 Claims
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/The-Supreme-Court-Of-California-Clarifies-The-Legal-Standards-For-Economic-Torts</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 3, 2020, a unanimous California Supreme Court clarified the legal standards for claims alleging tortious interference with contracts that are terminable at will and the substantive standard for review of alleged violations of California Business and Professions Code section 16600&apos;s prohibition against restraints on the freedom to engage in a business.  Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc., No. S256927, 2020 WL 4432623 (Cal. Aug. 3, 2020).  On appeal from the Eastern District of California, the Ninth Circuit (Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc., 930 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2019)) asked the California Supreme Court to answer two certified questions on unresolved issues of California law:  (1) whether a plaintiff must plead an independently wrongful act to state a claim for tortious interference with a contract that is terminable at will; and (2) whether a contract is void under section 16600 where it restrains one entity from engaging in lawful business or trade with another entity.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2020 18:35:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/The-Supreme-Court-Of-California-Clarifies-The-Legal-Standards-For-Economic-Torts</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SDNY Denies Class Certification On Aluminum Price-Fixing Claims
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/SDNY-Denies-Class-Certification-On-Aluminum-Price-Fixing-Claims</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 23, 2020, U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied a motion for class certification in the Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litigation based on plaintiffs&apos; failure to show that they could establish class-wide impact through common proof.  The case is significant, among other things, in its close examination and rejection of plaintiffs&apos; statistical models based on average impact that mask the existence of putative class members who did not suffer any injury.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2020 18:53:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/SDNY-Denies-Class-Certification-On-Aluminum-Price-Fixing-Claims</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>When &quot;Killing Competition&quot; Isn&apos;t Anticompetitive:  Federal Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of Power Grid Tech Company&apos;s Antitrust Claims Against Rival Firms
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/When-Killing-Competition-Isnt-Anticompetitive-Federal-Circuit-Affirms</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 13, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Central District of California&apos;s dismissal of a suit brought by a power systems software company against three competitor corporations on grounds that plaintiff&apos;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).
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2020 20:26:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/When-Killing-Competition-Isnt-Anticompetitive-Federal-Circuit-Affirms</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Texas District Court Finds Foreign Patent Holder Properly Served Through U.S. Subsidiary in Antitrust Dispute Over Standards Essential Patents
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Texas-District-Court-Finds-Foreign-Patent-Holder-Properly-Saved-Through-US-Subsidiary</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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&apos;s (&quot;Sharp Japan&quot;) motion to dismiss claims that Sharp Japan colluded with other technology companies in refusing to license their standard essential patents (&quot;SEPs&quot;) on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (&quot;FRAND&quot;) terms.  Continental Auto. Sys., Inc. v. Avanci, LLC, No. 3:19-cv-02933-M (N.D. Ill. July 5, 2020). 
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2020 18:51:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Texas-District-Court-Finds-Foreign-Patent-Holder-Properly-Saved-Through-US-Subsidiary</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Northern District Of Illinois Dismisses Antitrust Claims Relating To World&apos;s Most Profitable Drug—Humira (Adalimumab)
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-Illinois-Dismisses-Antitrust-Claims-Relating-To-Worlds-Most-Profitable-Drug</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 8, 2020, Judge Manish Shah of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) granted AbbVie&apos;s motion to dismiss plaintiff&apos;s Sherman Act claims because the allegations fell &quot;short of alleging the kind of competitive harm remedied by antitrust law.&quot;  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 &amp;sect;&amp;sect; 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by improperly exercising monopoly power over the market for the drug Adalimumab.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2020 19:26:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-Illinois-Dismisses-Antitrust-Claims-Relating-To-Worlds-Most-Profitable-Drug</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>California Appeals Court Reverses Denial Of Class Certification In Anheuser-Busch Pricing Suit
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/California-Appeals-Court-Reverses-Denial-Of-Class-Certification-In-Anheuser-Busch</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 29, 2020, the Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District of California (Judge Brad Hill) reversed the lower court&apos;s denial of certification for a class of convenience store owners pursuing a price discrimination claim under California law.  Dhillon, et al. v. Anheuser-Busch, LLC, et al., No. F074952, 2020 WL 2786837 (Cal. Ct. App. May 29, 2020).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants, a major brewer and its distributor, violated California law requiring wholesalers to sell to retailers on a nondiscriminatory basis and charge only the prices filed with the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.  Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that defendants engaged in a systematic scheme to favor certain retailers over others in the pricing of beer by issuing a disproportionately large number of consumer coupons to favored retailers.  Those retailers, in turn, allegedly redeemed the coupons themselves rather than issuing them to customers to use in connection with a particular beer sale.  Based on this scheme, plaintiffs alleged, the favored retailers effectively received wholesale prices, below the prices paid by &quot;disfavored&quot; retailers.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2020 19:09:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/California-Appeals-Court-Reverses-Denial-Of-Class-Certification-In-Anheuser-Busch</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>United States District Court For The Eastern District Of Pennsylvania Denies End-Payor Plaintiffs&apos; Motion For Class Certification In Pay-For-Delay MDL
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/United-States-District-Court-For-The-Eastern-District-Of-Pennsylvania</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 3, 2020, Judge Jan E. DuBois of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the End-Payor Plaintiffs&apos; (&quot;EPPs&quot;) motion for class certification in a multidistrict litigation (&quot;MDL&quot;) challenging the settlement practice of pay-for-delay.  In re Niaspan Antitrust Litig., No. 13-MD-2460, 2020 WL 2933824 (E.D. Pa. June 3, 2020).  The district court denied the EPPs&apos; motion for class certification because the EPPs failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, the requirements of ascertainability, predominance, and superiority.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2020 18:50:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/United-States-District-Court-For-The-Eastern-District-Of-Pennsylvania</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Reno, Nevada Escapes Shearman Section 1 Antitrust Suit
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Reno-Nevada-Escapes-Shearman-Section-1-Antitrust-Suit</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 14, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the summary judgement against a private recycling company, which had alleged the city of Reno, Nevada had violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by granting a competing recycling firm, Reno Disposal, an exclusive franchise over certain recycling services in the city.  Green Solutions Recycling, LLC v. Reno Disposal Company Inc., 3:16-cv-00334-MMD-CBC (9th Cir. May 14, 2020).
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2020 19:35:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Reno-Nevada-Escapes-Shearman-Section-1-Antitrust-Suit</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Important Procedural Developments In Litigation Over Two-Sided Markets
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Important-Procedural-Developments-In-Litigation-Over-Two-Sided-Markets</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
There were two developments in litigation involving the treatment of two-sided markets that, while not groundbreaking themselves, could portend significant implications for future litigation involving two-sided markets.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2020 19:53:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Important-Procedural-Developments-In-Litigation-Over-Two-Sided-Markets</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>SDNY Judge Grants 3M Preliminary Injunction Against N95 Mask Price Gouger
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/SDNY-Judge-Grants-3M-Preliminary-Injunction-Against-N95-Mask-Pricer-Gouger</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 4, 2020, U.S. District Judge Loretta A. Preska of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order granting plaintiff 3M&apos;s application for a preliminary injunction against defendant Performance Supply, LLC under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a).
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2020 18:23:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/SDNY-Judge-Grants-3M-Preliminary-Injunction-Against-N95-Mask-Pricer-Gouger</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>U.S. Attorney&apos;s Office Charges New York Resident With COVID-19-Related Price Gouging
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/US-Attorneyrsquos-Office-Charges-New-York-Resident-With-COVID-19-Related-Price</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On April 24, 2020, the U.S. Attorney&apos;s Office for the Eastern District of New York charged Long Island resident Amardeep Singh with hoarding and price gouging of medical supplies in violation of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (&quot;DPA&quot;).  The complaint alleges that Mr. Singh and his business entities acquired excessive amounts of personal protective equipment (&quot;PPE&quot;) and other medical supplies designated as &quot;scarce&quot; under an executive order issued by the President.  Mr. Singh then allegedly sold these products at prices well in excess of the prevailing market price, including a 1,328% markup on disposable face masks.  Complaint, United States v. Singh, No. 20-MJ-236 (SIL) (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2020).  According to the U.S. Attorney&apos;s Office, the charges are the first criminal charges filed under the DPA during the present crisis.  The case is currently before Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2020 18:52:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/US-Attorneyrsquos-Office-Charges-New-York-Resident-With-COVID-19-Related-Price</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Northern District Of Georgia Allows Sherman Act Tying Scheme Claims To Proceed
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-Georgia-Allows-Sherman-Act-Tying-Scheme-Claims-To-Proceed</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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&apos; motion to dismiss, rejecting defendants&apos; argument that plaintiff&apos;s amended complaint contained only conclusory allegations regarding the tying arrangement.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2020 16:35:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-Georgia-Allows-Sherman-Act-Tying-Scheme-Claims-To-Proceed</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Northern District Of Texas Rejects Walker Process And Sham Patent Litigation Antitrust Claims For Lack Of Standing Based On Failure To Show Causation
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-Texas-Rejects-Walker-Process-And-Sham-Patent-Litigation</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On April 13, 2020, Judge Reed O&apos;Connor of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted defendants&apos; motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs&apos; monopolization claim based on plaintiffs&apos; failure to present substantial evidence that fraud on the Patent Office and subsequent sham litigation were a material cause of plaintiffs&apos; alleged lost profits.  Chandler et al v. Phoenix Services LLC, 19-cv-00014 (N.D. Tex.  April 13, 2020).  With regard to plaintiffs&apos; claims for fees and costs expended in defending the sham litigation, the Court found that these claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2020 17:26:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-Texas-Rejects-Walker-Process-And-Sham-Patent-Litigation</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Southern District Of New York Dismisses Putative Class Action Against Banks For Alleged Price Manipulation
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-Of-New-York-Dismisses-Putative-Class-Action-Against-Banks</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 29, 2020, Judge Gregory H. Woods of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed for lack of standing a putative class action against defendant banks accused of a conspiracy to manipulate the global benchmark price of palladium and platinum.  The Court also dismissed plaintiffs&apos; Commodity Exchange Act (&quot;CEA&quot;) claims for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that the CEA allegations concerned primarily foreign conduct.  In re Platinum and Palladium Antitrust Litig., No. 1:14-CV-9391-GHW, 2020 WL 1503538 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2020).
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2020 17:29:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-Of-New-York-Dismisses-Putative-Class-Action-Against-Banks</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Southern District Of Florida Dismisses Antitrust Claim Despite Burger Franchise&apos;s Explicit No-Hire Agreements
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-Of-Florida-Dismisses-Antitrust-Claim-Despite-Burger-Franchise</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 24, 2020, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted defendants Burger King Worldwide, Inc., Burger King Corporation, Restaurant Brands International, Inc., and Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership&apos;s (&quot;Burger King&quot;) motion to dismiss plaintiffs&apos; claim that Burger King and its franchises colluded to limit employment options and suppress wages for franchise employees.  Jarvis Arrington et al. v. Burger King Worldwide, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-24128 (S.D. Fla. 2020).  The Court dismissed plaintiffs&apos; claim because Burger King and its franchises are not independent entities for the purpose of &amp;sect; 1 of the Sherman Act and thus not capable of conspiring.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2020 17:18:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-Of-Florida-Dismisses-Antitrust-Claim-Despite-Burger-Franchise</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>California District Court Partially Dismisses Constitutional Claims In Dental Antitrust Suit
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/California-District-Court-Partially-Dismisses-Constitutional-Claims</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 19, 2020, District Judge George Wu of the United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed an Equal Protection Clause claim, and expressed skepticism about remaining claims from a dental company&apos;s suit alleging anticompetitive practices on the part of the Dental Board of California (the &quot;Board&quot;) and related due process and Dormant Commerce Clause claims.  Sulitzer v. Tippins, 2:19-cv-08902 (C.D.Cal. March 19, 2020).
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2020 20:02:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/California-District-Court-Partially-Dismisses-Constitutional-Claims</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Seventh Circuit Resuscitates Medical Supply Suit, Ruling Plaintiffs Have Standing Under Illinois Brick
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Seventh-Circuit-Resuscitates-Medical-Supply-Suit</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 5, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded the Southern District of Illinois&apos; dismissal of a suit brought by healthcare providers against entities in the distribution chain for medical devices they purchased.  Marion Healthcare, LLC v. Becton Dickinson &amp; Co., 18-3735 (7th Cir. Mar. 5, 2020).  Judge Diane P. Wood, writing for a unanimous panel, ruled that the district court erred in deciding that plaintiffs lacked antitrust standing to bring conspiracy claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2020 17:20:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Seventh-Circuit-Resuscitates-Medical-Supply-Suit</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>D.C. Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of Wine Bar&apos;s Unfair Competition Action Against Trump Hotel
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/DC-Circuit-Affirms-Dismissal-Of-Wine-Barrsquos-Unfair-Competition</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On February 28, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed a district court&apos;s decision to dismiss a D.C. based restaurant&apos;s unfair competition action against President Donald J. Trump and his Washington, D.C. hotel.  K&amp;D LLC v. Trump Old Post Office LLC and Donald J. Trump, No. 18-7185 (D.C. Circuit Feb. 28, 2020).  The restaurant, Cork Wine Bar (&quot;Cork&quot;), brought suit in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia asserting claims for violation of D.C.&apos;s common law of unfair competition.  Cork principally alleged that the Trump International Hotel exploits an unfair competitive advantage by virtue of its association with the President&apos;s name.  Cork asserted that, following the 2016 election, Trump International Hotel began attracting a significant portion of Cork&apos;s previous customer base including lobbyists, advocacy groups, and diplomats because of the customers&apos; perception that patronizing Trump&apos;s establishment would help them curry favor with the Trump Administration.
 

]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2020 18:13:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/DC-Circuit-Affirms-Dismissal-Of-Wine-Barrsquos-Unfair-Competition</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Sixth Circuit Finds Arbitration Agreement For Price-Fixing Suit Unenforceable
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Sixth-Circuit-Finds-Arbitration-Agreement-For-Price-Fixing</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On February 24, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that an arbitration provision in a warranty clause did not apply to antitrust claims brought by auto parts distributors against manufacturers of automotive shock absorbers.  In re:  Auto. Parts Antitrust Litig. VIP, Inc. v. KYB Corp., No. 19-1150, 2020 WL 881263 (6th Cir. Feb. 24, 2020).  Defendants were seeking to use the provision to compel plaintiffs to arbitrate price-fixing claims.  The district court found the provision was not enforceable in these circumstances, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2020 20:03:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Sixth-Circuit-Finds-Arbitration-Agreement-For-Price-Fixing</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Central District Of California Allows Sherman Act Claims Against Performing Rights Organization To Proceed But Strikes Claims For Monetary Relief
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Central-District-Of-California-Allows-Sherman-Act</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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)&apos;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).
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2020 17:18:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Central-District-Of-California-Allows-Sherman-Act</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Southern District Of New York Sinks Sync Licensing Claims
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-Of-New-York-Sinks-Sync-Licensing-Claims</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 29, 2020, Judge Denise Cote of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a group of music publishers&apos; motion to dismiss antitrust and tortious interference claims.  Downtown Music Publishing LLC et al. v. Peloton Interactive Inc., No. 1:19-cv-02426 (S.D.N.Y. 2020).  Defendant Peloton brought counterclaims alleging that the National Music Publishers&apos; Association, Inc. (&quot;NMPA&quot;) and its members (collectively, &quot;plaintiffs&quot;) had engaged in anticompetitive behavior including the refusal to deal with Peloton by denying sync licenses for music to be used in its exercise classes.  The Court dismissed defendant Peloton&apos;s antitrust counterclaims for failure to state a claim due to lack of proper market definition and declined to allow Peloton an option to amend its relevant market allegations.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2020 15:57:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-Of-New-York-Sinks-Sync-Licensing-Claims</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Southern District Of California Dismisses Price-Fixing Claims Against Owners Of Major Tuna Purveyor
 

</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-Of-California-Dismisses-Price-Fixing</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 28, 2020, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed antitrust claims alleging that a private equity fund holding an ownership interest in Bumble Bee Foods LLC (&quot;Bumble Bee&quot;) participated in a conspiracy with major tuna companies to fix the prices of their packaged seafood products.  Judge Janis L. Sammartino granted defendants&apos; motion to dismiss claims against Lion Capital LLP (&quot;Lion Capital&quot;) and Big Catch Cayman LP (&quot;Big Catch&quot;) under FRCP 12(b)(6) with prejudice, determining that plaintiffs failed to state plausible claims for relief against these defendants under &amp;sect;1 of the Sherman Act.  In Re: Packaged Seafood Products Antitrust Litigation, 15-MD-2670 JLS (MDD) (S.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2019).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2020 19:59:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-Of-California-Dismisses-Price-Fixing</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>D.C. District Court Denies Motion To Dismiss FTC Monopolization Claim Based On Loyalty Discount Program And Exclusive Dealing Arrangements 
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/DC-District-Court-Denies-Motion-To-Dismiss-FTC-Monopolization</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 17, 2020, District Judge John D. Bates of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied defendant&apos;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 &quot;Company&quot;), rejecting the Company&apos;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).
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jan 2020 18:44:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/DC-District-Court-Denies-Motion-To-Dismiss-FTC-Monopolization</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>United States District Court Judge Denies Writers Guild Motion To Dismiss Antitrust Suit Brought By Hollywood Talent Agencies Alleging The Orchestration Of An Illegal Boycott In The Entertainment Industry
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/United-States-District-Court-Judge-Denies-Writers</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 6, 2020, District Judge Andre Birotte Jr. of the United States District Court for the
Central District of California denied defendants, Writers Guild of America West, Inc. and Writers Guild of America East, Inc.&apos;s (&quot;WGA&quot;) motion to dismiss an action brought by three of the largest Hollywood talent agencies alleging that WGA violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by orchestrating an illegal boycott.  William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, LLC., et al. v. Writers Guild of America, West, Inc. et al., No. 2:19-cv-05465-AB-FFMx (Jan. 7, 2020).    ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jan 2020 20:19:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/United-States-District-Court-Judge-Denies-Writers</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Court Orders NCAA To Pay Student Athletes&apos; $33M Legal Bill After Successful Antitrust Challenge To NCAA Rules But Declines To Apply A Multiplier
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Court-Orders-NCAA-To-Pay-Student-Athletes-Legal-Bill-After-Successful-Antitrust-Challenge</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On December 23, 2019, Magistrate Judge Nathaniel M. Cousins of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order directing the National Collegiate Athletic Association (&quot;NCAA&quot;) to pay $31.8 million in attorney fees and $1.3 million in costs incurred by plaintiffs in their antitrust challenge to certain NCAA rules governing compensation for student-athletes.  In re National Collegiate Athletic Association Athletic Grant-in-aid Cap Antitrust Litigation, No. 4:14-md-02541 (N.D. Ca. Dec. 23, 2019).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2020 22:55:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Court-Orders-NCAA-To-Pay-Student-Athletes-Legal-Bill-After-Successful-Antitrust-Challenge</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Texas Court Of Appeals Gives Plaintiff Second Take In Conspiracy Suit Against Major Movie Theater Chain
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Texas-Court-Of-Appeals-Gives-Plaintiff-Second-Take-in-Conspiracy-Suit-Against-Major-Movie-Theater</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On December 5, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas held that a movie theater chain presented sufficient evidence suggesting two national competitors conspired to prevent the chain&apos;s entry to withstand summary judgment.  This ruling reversed the trial court&apos;s decision, which granted summary judgment to the remaining defendant and dismissed antitrust restraint-of-trade claims.  iPic-Gold Class Entm&apos;t LLC, et al. v. AMC Entm&apos;t Holdings Inc., et al., No. 01-17-00805-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 5, 2019).  Justice Peter Kelly, writing for a unanimous panel, ruled that evidence of parallel actions by the two competitors and communication lines between them raised genuine issues of material fact as to the existence of a conspiracy in violation of The Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act (&quot;TFEAA&quot;). ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Dec 2019 18:52:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Texas-Court-Of-Appeals-Gives-Plaintiff-Second-Take-in-Conspiracy-Suit-Against-Major-Movie-Theater</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Eastern District Of Pennsylvania Refuses To Determine Proper Standard Of Review In No-Poach Suit At The Motion To Dismiss Phase; Denies Motion In Part
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eastern-District-Of-Pennsylvania-Refuses-To-Determine</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 25, 2019, Judge Anita Brody of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued an order granting in part, and denying in part, defendants&apos; motion to dismiss claims alleging Jiffy Lube&apos;s (the &quot;Company&apos;s&quot;) franchise agreements included no-poach provisions that violate Section One of the Sherman Act.  Fuentes v. Royal Dutch Shell PLC, et al., 18-cv-05174 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 25, 2019).  Plaintiffs alleged that requests to be transferred between the Company franchisees in Florida and Pennsylvania were denied because of no-poach clauses that prevented franchisees from hiring other franchisees&apos; employees while they were working at the Company and for six months following the end of their employment.  According to plaintiffs, the no-poach provision in the Company&apos;s franchising agreements suppressed wages, inhibited employment mobility and lessened professional work opportunities.   
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Dec 2019 17:47:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eastern-District-Of-Pennsylvania-Refuses-To-Determine</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of ODD Price-Fixing Suit
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-Affirms-Dismissal-Of-ODD-Price-Fixing-Suit</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 20, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment dismissing indirect purchaser plaintiffs&apos; claims that defendants, electronics manufacturers, conspired to fix the prices of optical disc drives (&quot;ODD&quot;) and computers with ODD.  Indirect Purchaser Class v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al., No. 1:18-cv-15058 (9th Cir. 2019).  The Ninth Circuit rejected plaintiffs&apos; claims, because their economic expert&apos;s analysis seeking to show that the fixed prices were passed on to consumers was not supported by the record evidence.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Dec 2019 19:08:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-Affirms-Dismissal-Of-ODD-Price-Fixing-Suit</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Plaintiffs Failed To Sufficiently Allege Airlines&apos; Parallel Actions To Establish Conspiracy Claim</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Plaintiffs-Failed-To-Allege-Airlinesrsquo-Paralle</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 12, 2019, Judge George J. Hazel of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs&apos; putative class action against major airlines with routes between the United States and Mexico.  Plaintiffs had failed to allege violations of the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (&quot;RICO&quot;), Section 1 of the Sherman Act, or state law.  Rojas v. Delta Airlines, Inc., Case No. GJH-19-665 (D. Md. Nov. 12, 2019).  The Court also denied defendants&apos; motion to change venue.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2019 18:45:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Plaintiffs-Failed-To-Allege-Airlinesrsquo-Paralle</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Federal Trade Commission Orders Otto Bock To Unwind Consummated Merger
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Federal-Trade-Commission-Orders-Otto-Bock-To-Unwind</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 6, 2019, the Federal Trade Commission (&quot;FTC&quot; or &quot;Commission&quot;) unanimously upheld an Administrative Law Judge&apos;s decision requiring Otto Bock HealthCare North America, Inc. (&quot;Otto Bock&quot;) to unwind its consummated acquisition of Freedom Innovations (&quot;Freedom&quot;).The Commission concluded that the transaction resulted in anticompetitive harm in the market for microprocessor-equipped prosthetic knees (&quot;MPKs&quot;), which offer certain improvements over conventional, mechanical prosthetic knees.The decision represents the first time that the current slate of Commissioners has ordered the unwinding of a consummated transaction.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Nov 2019 16:33:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Federal-Trade-Commission-Orders-Otto-Bock-To-Unwind</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of Pharmaceutical Antitrust Action, Holding The FTAIA&apos;s Import Exclusion Is Effects-Based, Not Intent-Based
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Affirms-Dismissal-Of-Pharmaceutical-Antitrust-Action</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 5, 2019, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Panel) affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York&apos;s dismissal of antitrust claims brought against manufacturers of cancer treatment drugs.  Biocad JSC v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., No. 17-3486-cv (2d Cir. Nov. 5, 2019).  Plaintiff, a private pharmaceutical company based in Russia, alleged that defendants conspired to block plaintiff from entering the U.S. market for cancer treatment drugs in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and other statutes.  In affirming the district court&apos;s dismissal, the Panel held plaintiff&apos;s claims were barred under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (&quot;FTAIA&quot;), clarifying that, in the Second Circuit, the proper test under the FTAIA&apos;s import exclusion is effects-based, not intent-based.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:37:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Affirms-Dismissal-Of-Pharmaceutical-Antitrust-Action</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Western District Of Kentucky Upholds Complaint Challenging Franchise No-Poach Agreements As Horizontal Restraints Of Trade
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Western-District-Of-Kentucky-Upholds-Complaint-</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On October 21, 2019, Judge Joseph H. McKinley Jr. of the United State District Court for the Western District of Kentucky issued a mixed order and opinion that denied Defendants Papa John&apos;s International, Inc. and Papa John&apos;s USA&apos;s (&quot;Papa John&apos;s&quot; or &quot;Defendants&quot;) motion to dismiss Plaintiffs&apos; class claims, but granted Defendants&apos; motion to compel one of the named plaintiffs to arbitrate.  In Re Papa John&apos;s Employee and Franchisee Employee Antitrust Litigation, NO: 3:18-CV-00825-JHM (W.D. Ky. 2019).  The case involves three consolidated putative class actions filed by current and former employees against defendants, alleging no-poach, or no-hire, clauses in the company&apos;s franchise agreements are a horizontal restraint on trade and a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The Court ruled that plaintiffs adequately alleged a per se violation, but that discovery would be necessary to determine what standard of review would apply moving forward.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Oct 2019 16:53:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Western-District-Of-Kentucky-Upholds-Complaint-</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Southern District Of New York Dismisses &quot;Truly Novel&quot; Restraint Of Trade Theory In Pharmaceutical Antitrust Action
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-Of-New-York-Dismisses-ldquoTrul</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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&apos;s patents.  The Court dismissed these conspiracy claims, finding that plaintiffs&apos; &quot;truly novel&quot; theory for why the settlement agreements between Takeda and the other defendants violated the antitrust laws lacked &quot;even a colorable basis&quot; of support.  The Court&apos;s decision left in place one remaining claim against Takeda for monopolization.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Oct 2019 20:13:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-Of-New-York-Dismisses-ldquoTrul</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Southern District of New York Dismisses Putative Antitrust Class Action Finding Plaintiffs Failed To Plead Defendants Transacted Business Of A &quot;Substantial Character&quot; In New York
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-of-New-York-Dismisses-Putative-</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On October 4, 2019, District Judge Edgardo Ramos of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative antitrust class action against certain defendants, foreign banks, and individuals for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue.  In re SSA Bonds Antitrust Litig., No. 16 CIV. 3711 (ER) 2019 WL 4917608 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2019).  Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant financial institutions and certain employees operating as dealers in the U.S. dollar SSA bond market conspired to fix the price of SSA bonds in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  Several dealer defendants (the &quot;Foreign Dealer Defendants&quot;) and four of their employees (the &quot;Individual Defendants&quot;) moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and venue.  The Court granted the motion, finding that plaintiffs had not satisfied the venue provision of the Clayton Act because plaintiffs failed to show that the Foreign Dealer Defendants transacted business of a &quot;substantial character&quot; in New York and failed to establish a nexus for purposes of personal jurisdiction &quot;between the alleged business transactions in New York and the claims of this antitrust case.&quot; 
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Oct 2019 20:13:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-of-New-York-Dismisses-Putative-</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Seventh Circuit Closes Chapter On Creditor Price Fixing Claims Against Bankruptcy Software Provider
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Seventh-Circuit-Closes-Chapter-On-Creditor-Price-</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 5, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a decision by the Northern District of Illinois dismissing Illinois state antitrust claims brought by a bankruptcy creditor against the bankruptcy trustee&apos;s software services provider.  McGarry &amp; McGarry, LLC v. Bankr. Mgt. Sols., Inc., 18-2619, 2019 WL 4197546 (7th Cir. Sept. 5, 2019).  Plaintiff alleged that defendant entered into a price-fixing conspiracy with other bankruptcy software providers.  Judge Diane S. Sykes, writing for a unanimous panel, ruled that plaintiff lacked antitrust standing because it did not meaningfully participate in the relevant market for bankruptcy software services and, accordingly, its alleged injury was too remote from the claimed price-fixing violation. ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Oct 2019 20:58:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Seventh-Circuit-Closes-Chapter-On-Creditor-Price-</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Southern District Of New York Dismisses Claims In Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Suit
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-Of-New-York-Dismisses-Claims-In-Mexican-Government-Bonds</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 30, 2019, Judge Paul Oetken of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed claims that defendants, a group of ten financial institutions and related entities, had conspired to manipulate the market for certain debt securities issued by the Mexican government.  In re Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation, 18-CV-2830 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019).  Plaintiffs, a group of pension funds, alleged that defendants rigged the auction process used by the Mexican government to issue bonds and conspired to manipulate the pricing of the bonds on the secondary market, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  According to plaintiffs, the conspiracy artificially depressed auction prices, artificially inflated secondary market prices, and fixed bid-ask spreads, resulting in harm to the pension funds in the United States. ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Oct 2019 14:45:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-Of-New-York-Dismisses-Claims-In-Mexican-Government-Bonds</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>European Union General Court Annuls Cartel Fine Based On European Commission&apos;s Insufficient Reasoning
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/European-Union-General-Court-Annuls-Cartel-Fine-Based-On-European-Commision</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 24, 2019, the EU General Court annulled the cartel fine the European Commission had imposed on a financial institution for alleged anticompetitive conduct in the Euro interest rate derivatives market based on the Commission&apos;s failure to adequately explain its reasoning in determining the amount of the fine.  HSBC Holdings plc et al v. European Commission, Judgment in Case T-105-17.  At the same time, the Court largely upheld the Commission&apos;s decision on the underlying infringement and provided additional clarity on other key aspects of cartel rules, namely, &apos;by object&apos; infringements, the evidentiary requirements to establish a single and continuous infringement (SCI), and the Commission&apos;s obligation to uphold a non-settling party&apos;s presumption of innocence in hybrid settlement procedures.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2019 15:28:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/European-Union-General-Court-Annuls-Cartel-Fine-Based-On-European-Commision</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Northern District Of Illinois Finds Hockey Club&apos;s Shot Against Hockey League Misses The Net
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-Illinois-Finds-Hockey-Clubs-Shot-Against-Hockey-League</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 26, 2019, Judge Manish S. Shah of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed antitrust claims by plaintiff Reapers Hockey Association, Inc., an amateur hockey club, against Amateur Hockey Association Illinois (&quot;AHAI&quot;), an amateur hockey league, and its four constituent clubs (the &quot;club defendants&quot;), finding that plaintiff failed to state a claim under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.  Reapers Hockey Association, Inc. v. Amateur Hockey Association Illinois, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-1302 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 26, 2019).  Because it decided that plaintiff&apos;s claims failed on the merits, it also denied plaintiff&apos;s motion for a preliminary injunction.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2019 14:25:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-Illinois-Finds-Hockey-Clubs-Shot-Against-Hockey-League</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Second Circuit Finds District Court Failed To Properly Consider Two-Sided Markets In Travel Platform Suit, Voids $15M Antitrust Verdict
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Finds-District-Court-Failed-To-Properly-Consider-Two-Sided-Markets-In-Travel-Platform</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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&apos;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.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Sep 2019 20:45:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Finds-District-Court-Failed-To-Properly-Consider-Two-Sided-Markets-In-Travel-Platform</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Seventh Circuit Allows Beer Conspiracy Allegations One More Shot
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Seventh-Circuit-Allows-Beer-Conspiracy-Allegations-One-More-Shot</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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&apos;s dismissal of antitrust claims alleging that two brewers conspired to restrict a competitor&apos;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 &quot;LCBO&quot;) 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. ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Sep 2019 18:43:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Seventh-Circuit-Allows-Beer-Conspiracy-Allegations-One-More-Shot</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of Price Fixing Claims Against Oil Companies
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Affirms-Dismissal-Of-Price-Fixing-Claims-Against-Oil-Companies</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 29, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an Opinion and Summary Order affirming the dismissal of plaintiffs-appellant derivatives traders&apos; Sherman Act and Commodities Exchange Act claims against defendant-appellees oil companies. Prime International Trading, Ltd., et al. v. BP PLC, et al., No. 1:17-cv-2233 (2d Cir. 2019).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Sep 2019 22:18:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Affirms-Dismissal-Of-Price-Fixing-Claims-Against-Oil-Companies</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Second Circuit Reverses District Court&apos;s Dismissal Of Metal Purchasers&apos; Antitrust Claims
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Reverses-District-Courtrsquos-Dismissal-Of-Metal-Purchasers-Antitrust-Claims</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 27, 2019, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a grant of summary judgment by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which had dismissed the claims of a group of aluminum buyers on grounds they did not have standing in an antitrust suit alleging a conspiracy to artificially inflate aluminum prices.  Judge Pierre N. Leval, writing for the panel, disagreed with the District Court&apos;s dismissal, ruled that plaintiffs had adequately pleaded antitrust injury, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Henry Bath LLC, 16-4230, 2019 WL 4018285 (2d Cir. Aug. 27, 2019).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Sep 2019 20:12:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Reverses-District-Courtrsquos-Dismissal-Of-Metal-Purchasers-Antitrust-Claims</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>District of Columbia Circuit Pulls The Brake On Class Certification Bid In Railroad Price-Fixing Suit
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/District-of-Columbia-Circuit-Pulls-The-Brake-On-Class-Certification</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 16, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed a lower court&apos;s decision to deny class certification in an antitrust action involving some of the country&apos;s largest freight railroad companies.  In Re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1869, (D.C. Cir. Aug. 16, 2019).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants conspired to fix rate-based fuel surcharges in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, Section 4 of the Clayton Act and various state laws.  The panel, which consisted of Chief Judge Merrick Garland and Judges Judith Rogers and Gregory Katsas, held that class certification was inappropriate because plaintiffs&apos; regression analysis did not establish predominance.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Aug 2019 16:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/District-of-Columbia-Circuit-Pulls-The-Brake-On-Class-Certification</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Eastern District Of Michigan Slices No-Poach Antitrust Claims Against Pizza Franchise
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eastern-District-Of-Michigan-Slices-No-Poach-Anti</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 29, 2019, Judge David M. Lawson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed, with prejudice, antitrust claims stemming from a fast-food pizza franchise&apos;s use of &quot;no-poach&quot; hiring agreements in its standard franchise contracts.  Judge Lawson determined that plaintiff, who did not attempt to advance a rule of reason antitrust claim, had not pled a viable per se or quick look antitrust violation.  Moreover, plaintiff did not plausibly allege that the no-poach agreements caused him a cognizable antitrust injury.  Ogden v. Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc., No. 18-12792, 2019 WL 3425266 (E.D. Mich. July 29, 2019).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Aug 2019 20:43:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eastern-District-Of-Michigan-Slices-No-Poach-Anti</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>D.C. Circuit Grounds Competition Challenge To FAA Regulations For Lack Of Standing
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/DC-Circuit-Grounds-Competition-Challenge-to-FAA-Regulations</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 2, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed an airline technology company&apos;s petitions for review of regulations that petitioner alleged both restricted competition for airport flight slots and limited petitioner&apos;s market opportunity for lack of standing.  Exhaustless Inc. v. FAA, Case No. 18-1304 (D.C. Cir. 2019).  The panel—Judges Karen Henderson, Sri Srinivasan and Cornelia Pillard—ruled that petitioner failed to show that it was injured or would incur injury from the Federal Aviation Association&apos;s regulations limiting the number of flights out of LaGuardia and JFK Airports.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Aug 2019 22:37:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/DC-Circuit-Grounds-Competition-Challenge-to-FAA-Regulations</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>United States District Court For The Southern District Of California Certifies Big Tuna Classes
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/United-States-District-Court-For-The-Southern-Dis</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 30, 2019, U.S. District Court Judge Janis Sammartino of the Southern District of California certified three separate classes of tuna purchasers alleging price-fixing by producers of packaged tuna:  (1) direct-purchaser plaintiffs, (2) commercial-food-preparer plaintiffs, and (3) end-payer plaintiffs.  In re Packaged Seafood Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 15-MD-2670, July 30, 2019.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2019 15:13:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/United-States-District-Court-For-The-Southern-Dis</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Central District Of California Gives Poor Review To Movie Rental Antitrust Claims
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Central-District-Of-California-Gives-Poor-Review-</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 17, 2019, Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed antitrust claims alleging that a major media and entertainment conglomerate unlawfully restrained trade in the nationwide market for rentals and sales of movies on DVD, Blu-ray and digital platforms.  Judge Pregerson determined that plaintiff had not met its pleading burden; specifically, it did not adequately allege market power or anticompetitive effects in the relevant market.  Redbox Automated Retail, LLC v. Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc., CV 18-00677-DDP (AGRx), 2019 WL 3237376 (C.D. Cal. July 17, 2019).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jul 2019 14:48:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Central-District-Of-California-Gives-Poor-Review-</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Seventh Circuit Extinguishes Antitrust Conspiracy Claims About Local Fire Alarm Laws
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Seventh-Circuit-Extinguishes-Antitrust-Conspiracy</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 15, 2019, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed claims alleging an antitrust conspiracy between a local municipality, an intergovernmental cooperation association and a private provider of commercial fire-alarm services.  Alarm Detection Sys., Inc. v. Vill. of Schaumburg, No. 18-3316, 2019 WL 3071744 (7th Cir. July 15, 2019).  The Court held that plaintiffs failed to plausibly plead the existence of an underlying agreement between defendants as required to plead an antitrust conspiracy claim.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jul 2019 18:23:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Seventh-Circuit-Extinguishes-Antitrust-Conspiracy</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Eastern District Of Pennsylvania Dismisses Claims Against Generic Drug Distributor In Multi-District Price-Fixing Suit
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eastern-District-Of-Pennsylvania-Dismisses-Claims</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 26, 2019, Judge Cynthia M. Rufe of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed claims that McKesson Corporation and McKesson Medical Surgical, Inc. (collectively the &quot;Company&quot;) engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices of generic pharmaceuticals.  Marion Diagnostic Center, LLC, et al.  v. McKesson Corporation, et al., No.  16-MD-2724 (June 26, 2019).  The Court held that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that the Company&apos;s conduct as a generic drug distributor was the result of an agreement with co-defendant generic drug manufacturers. ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jul 2019 18:22:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eastern-District-Of-Pennsylvania-Dismisses-Claims</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Companies With Effective Antitrust Compliance Programs Could Get Relief From Criminal Prosecution Under New DOJ Policy
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Companies-With-Effective-Antitrust-Compliance-Pro</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
The Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (&quot;Division&quot;) finally will consider the existence of effective antirust compliance programs at the charging stage of criminal antitrust investigations, opening up the possibility that cartel participants could avoid prosecution even if they are not a first-in leniency applicant.  The Division&apos;s previous, and longstanding, approach had been not to consider compliance programs at the charging stage, on the theory that a compliance program is by definition ineffective if it failed to prevent a criminal violation of the antitrust laws. ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jul 2019 18:20:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Companies-With-Effective-Antitrust-Compliance-Pro</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Central District Of California Finds Clothing Rental Company&apos;s Antitrust Claims All Style, No Substance
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Central-District-Of-California-Finds-Clothing-Rental-Companys-Antitrust-Claims-All-Style</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 24, 2019, Judge George H. Wu of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted a defendant clothing rental company&apos;s motion to dismiss antitrust claims brought under California&apos;s Cartwright Act, as well as other state-law claims brought by a competing clothing rental company.  FashionPass, Inc. v. Rent the Runway, Inc., No. 19-cv-3537-CG(JCx) (June 24, 2019).  Plaintiff alleged that defendant interfered with and intentionally caused certain clothing suppliers to cancel their contracts with, and refuse to supply, plaintiff in violation of the Cartwright Act and California&apos;s Unfair Competition Law (&quot;UCL&quot;).  Plaintiff also brought tort claims for intentional interference with contract and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage based on the same alleged conduct.  The Court dismissed the complaint in full, finding that plaintiff failed to plead a primary violation of the Cartwright Act, because the complaint did not identify any harm to the market or to competition generally, but instead pleaded only harm to plaintiff itself.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jul 2019 15:29:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Central-District-Of-California-Finds-Clothing-Rental-Companys-Antitrust-Claims-All-Style</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Plaintiffs&apos; No Poach Class Claims Run Off The Rails
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Plaintiffsrsquo-No-Poach-Class-Claims-Run-Off-The-Rails</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 20, 2019, Judge Joy Flowers Conti of the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissed plaintiffs&apos; class claims that defendant employers colluded to suppress market wages by agreeing not to hire each other&apos;s employees.  The Court found that the complaint failed to adequately plead that all or nearly all employees in the proposed class were harmed by the alleged collusion.  In re Railway Industry Employee No-Poach Antitrust Litigation, No. 18-798 (W.D. Pa. June 20, 2019).  The Court, however, acknowledged plaintiffs had sufficiently pled the existence of an overarching conspiracy among defendants from 2014 to 2016 and individual agreements among each of the three defendants beginning at different times since 2009.  Since the class claims were dismissed without prejudice, plaintiffs have the opportunity to remedy their class-related pleading defects. ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jul 2019 17:45:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Plaintiffsrsquo-No-Poach-Class-Claims-Run-Off-The-Rails</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>California Superior Court Sends Healthcare Pricing Case To Trial
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/California-Superior-Court-Sends-Healthcare-Pricin</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 18, 2019, California Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo issued an order denying Sutter Health&apos;s motion for summary judgment on the alleged California antitrust claims concerning allegedly anticompetitive provisions in Sutter Health&apos;s vendor contracts. See UFCW &amp; Employers Benefit Trust, et al. v. Sutter Health, et al., CGC-14-538451 (Sup. Ct. Cal. 2014).
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jun 2019 16:51:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/California-Superior-Court-Sends-Healthcare-Pricin</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Northern District Of Georgia Rules On Antitrust State Action Immunity
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-Georgia-Rules-On-Antitrust-State-Action-Immunity</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 8, 2019, Judge William M. Ray II of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants&apos; motion to dismiss.  SmileDirectClub, LLC, v. Georgia Board of Dentistry, et al., No. 1:18-cv-02328-WMR (D.N.G. 2019).  Plaintiff alleged that the Georgia Board of Dentistry (the &quot;Board&quot;) and its individual members (collectively, &quot;defendants&quot;) conspired to exclude non-dentists from participating in the market for orthodontic aligner treatment services in Georgia.  The Court found that claims against the Board were barred by sovereign immunity, while claims against individual members of the Board were adequately pled and survived dismissal.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2019 14:52:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-Georgia-Rules-On-Antitrust-State-Action-Immunity</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Eastern District Of Michigan Allows Sherman Act Suit Based On Employee No-Poach Agreement To Proceed
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eastern-District-Of-Michigan-Allows-Sherman-Act-S</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 24, 2019, Judge Victoria A. Roberts of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied defendant Domino&apos;s Pizza Franchising LLC&apos;s and other related Domino&apos;s corporate entities&apos; motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiff, an employee of one of defendants&apos; franchisees, had adequately alleged a no-poach agreement in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  Blanton v. Domino&apos;s Pizza Franchising LLC, No. 18-13207 (E.D. Mich. May 24, 2019).  The Court also found that plaintiff plausibly pleaded that defendants&apos; fraudulently concealed their conduct such that the Sherman Act&apos;s four-year statute of limitations was tolled.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jun 2019 17:43:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eastern-District-Of-Michigan-Allows-Sherman-Act-S</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Second Circuit Revives Direct Injury Claims In Group Boycott Lawsuit
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Revives-Direct-Injury-Claims-In-Groupboyscott</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 10, 2019, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in a panel consisting of Judges John M. Walker, Jr., Dennis Jacobs, and Rosemary S. Pooler, affirmed in part and vacated in part a decision by Judge Brian M. Cogan of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on antitrust standing.  IQ Dental Supply, Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc., 18-175-cv (2d Cir. May 10, 2019).  The court agreed with Judge Cogan that plaintiff, IQ Dental Supply, Inc. (&quot;IQ&quot;), had failed to establish antitrust standing to challenge the alleged boycott of an online distribution portal, SourceOne, Inc. (&quot;SourceOne&quot;), which it used to distribute dental supplies to dental practices nationwide.  However, the court found that IQ had pled sufficient facts to establish antitrust standing regarding a boycott of its own business and vacated the district court&apos;s judgment.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 29 May 2019 20:29:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Revives-Direct-Injury-Claims-In-Groupboyscott</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>In Case Against Major Technology Corporation, United States Supreme Court Holds Mobile Phone Owners Have Antitrust Standing To Bring Claims Against Operator Of Application Store
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/In-Case-Against-Major-Technology-Corporation-United-States-Supreme-Court</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed a Ninth Circuit decision reversing a California District Court&apos;s dismissal of plaintiffs&apos; 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&apos;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).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2019 14:56:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/In-Case-Against-Major-Technology-Corporation-United-States-Supreme-Court</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Southern District Of California Denies Motion To Compel Attorney Communications In Price Fixing Action
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-Of-California-Denies-Motion-To-Compel-Attorney</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 6, 2019, U.S. Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied plaintiffs&apos; motions (i) to compel production of attorney-client communications and work product and (ii) to compel additional testimony in a multidistrict litigation over alleged price-fixing in the canned tuna industry.  In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig., No. 15-md-2670 (S.D. Cal. May 6, 2019).  In denying the motions, the Court found that the general counsel for one of the defendants (the &quot;Company&quot;) did not waive privilege regarding analysis conducted by the Company&apos;s outside counsel when he testified during his deposition that outside counsel had reviewed the discovery in the case and opined that there was no evidence of price-fixing other than regarding one product—5-ounce cans of tuna.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2019 18:34:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-Of-California-Denies-Motion-To-Compel-Attorney</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Second Circuit Rejects Bid To Revive Libor Antitrust Suit By Plaintiff Whose Bonds Were Not Tied To Libor
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Rejects-Bid-To-Revive-Libor-Antitrust-Suit-By-Plaintiff</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On April 30, 2019, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in a panel consisting of Judges Rosemary S. Pooler, Denny Chin, and Eric N. Vitaliano, affirmed a decision by Judge Paul G. Gardephe of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denying plaintiff&apos;s request for leave to amend its complaint alleging that various banks conspired to manipulate LIBOR.  7 West 57th Street Realty Company, LLC v. Citigroup, Inc., 18-1102-cv (2d Cir. April 30, 2019).  The Court agreed with Judge Gardephe that plaintiff, the successor in interest to a real estate developer, lacked antitrust standing to bring suit because it was not an efficient enforcer and that amending the complaint would be futile.  The Court also agreed that plaintiff did not allege facts sufficient to state a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (&quot;RICO&quot;).
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2019 20:05:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Rejects-Bid-To-Revive-Libor-Antitrust-Suit-By-Plaintiff</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Third Circuit Affirms Dismissal In Favor Of Defendant Internet Service Provider By Disconnecting Monopsony And Conspiracy Claims
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Third-Circuit-Affirms-Dismissal-In-Favor-Of-Defendant-Internet-Service</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On April 19, 2019, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Middle District of Pennsylvania&apos;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.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2019 16:04:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Third-Circuit-Affirms-Dismissal-In-Favor-Of-Defendant-Internet-Service</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>District Of New Jersey Denies Summary Judgment On Robinson-Patman Rebates Claims
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/District-Of-New-Jersey-Denies-Summary-Judgment-On-Robinson-Patman</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On April 1, 2019, Judge William J. Martini of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied defendants&apos; motion for summary judgment in a Robinson-Patman Act suit.  Marjam Supply Co. v. Firestone Building Products Co. LLC, et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-07119 (D.N.J. 2019).  The Court found that plaintiff raised triable issues of fact regarding defendants&apos; selective offering of rebates, discounts, and other financing programs under the Robinson-Patman Act&apos;s price discrimination provisions.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2019 14:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/District-Of-New-Jersey-Denies-Summary-Judgment-On-Robinson-Patman</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>District Of New Jersey Denies Building Materials Manufacturer&apos;s Motion For Summary Judgment In Alleged Price Discrimination Lawsuit
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/District-Of-New-Jersey-Denies-Building-Materials-Manufacturers</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On April 1, 2019, Judge William J. Martini of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied Firestone Building Products Company LLC&apos;s motion for summary judgment on price discrimination claims brought by a building materials distributor.  Marjam Supply Co. v. Firestone Bldg. Prod. Co., LLC, No. 2:11-cv-7119, 2019 WL 1451105 (D.N.J. Apr. 2, 2019).  Plaintiff alleged that defendant, a manufacturer of building materials, offered its roofing products to several of plaintiff&apos;s competitors (&quot;Favored Distributors&quot;) at terms more favorable than those offered to plaintiff through a variety of non-uniform rebate, discount and financing programs in violation of Sections 2(a) and 2(d) of the Robinson-Patman Act.  Plaintiff claimed that due to the disparate terms offered by the manufacturer, Favored Distributors were able to offer the manufacturer&apos;s products to plaintiff&apos;s major customers at lower prices than plaintiff and that it lost significant business as a result.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2019 15:40:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/District-Of-New-Jersey-Denies-Building-Materials-Manufacturers</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>United States District Court For The Northern District Of California Focuses On Information Sharing To Magnify Anticompetitive Conspiracy In Antitrust Suit Against Telescope Manufacturers
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/United-States-District-Court-For-The-Northern-District-Of-California</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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 &amp; Binoculars (&quot;Orion&quot;) had sufficiently pled that defendants Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co., Ltd. (&quot;Ningbo&quot;) and Celestron, LLC (&quot;Celestron&quot;) had conspired to divide the market for low- to medium-end telescopes and block a competing manufacturer&apos;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&apos;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&apos;s advance knowledge of Ningbo&apos;s interest in the merger.  Celestron settled prior to the litigation, but Orion and Ningbo will continue into discovery.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2019 18:12:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/United-States-District-Court-For-The-Northern-District-Of-California</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>United States District Court For The District Of Delaware Dismisses Allegations Of Anticompetitive Drone Pricing
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/United-States-District-Court-For-The-District-Of-Delaware-Dismisses-Allegations-Of-Anticompetitive</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[​
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 &quot;prosumer&quot; drones market by DJI Technology Co., Ltd. and DJI Europe B.V. (collectively &quot;DJI&quot;).  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 &quot;Autel&quot;) did not allege sufficient facts for a plausible predatory pricing claim.  In particular, the Court found that Autel failed to show that DJI&apos;s prices were below cost.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2019 14:28:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/United-States-District-Court-For-The-District-Of-Delaware-Dismisses-Allegations-Of-Anticompetitive</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Northern District Of California Grants NCAA Athletes Partial Victory In Antitrust Challenge To NCAA Rules
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Grants-NCAA-Athletes-Partial-Victory</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 8, 2019, after a bench trial, Judge Claudia Wilkin of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California found that the NCAA&apos;s restrictions on the amount of grants-in-aid and other benefits that universities can provide to student-athletes constitute anticompetitive restraints of trade.  In re: National Collegiate Athletic Association Athletic Grant-in-Aid Cap Antitrust Litigation, No. 4:14-md-02541-CW (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2019).  Based on this finding, the Court abrogated the NCAA&apos;s limits on &quot;education-related benefits&quot; that its member colleges may provide the student-athletes.  However, the Court did not eliminate all restrictions on the benefits that schools may provide to athletes.  Instead, using a &quot;less restrictive alternatives&quot; analysis, the Court permitted the NCAA to continue to limit non-education related benefits and compensation, as well as cash payments, to student-athletes.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2019 16:17:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Grants-NCAA-Athletes-Partial-Victory</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Southern District Of New York Dismisses CDOR Benchmark Manipulation Complaint In Its Entirety
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-Of-New-York-Dismisses-CDOR-Benchmark-Manipulation-Complaint</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 14, 2019, Judge Analisa Torres of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted defendants&apos; motion to dismiss a complaint alleging they improperly manipulated the Canadian Dollar Offered Rate (&quot;CDOR&quot;) benchmark.  Fire &amp; Police Pension Association of Colorado v. Bank of Montreal, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00342 (S.D.N.Y Mar. 14, 2019). ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2019 16:15:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-Of-New-York-Dismisses-CDOR-Benchmark-Manipulation-Complaint</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>D.C. Circuit Holds That DOJ Failed To Prove AT&amp;T/Time Warner Merger Is Anticompetitive
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/DC-Circuit-Holds-That-DOJ-Failed-To-Prove-ATT-Time-Warner-Merger-Is-Anticompetitive</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On February 26, 2019, a panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court&apos;s denial of the government&apos;s request for a permanent injunction against the merger of AT&amp;T and Time Warner. The opinion by Judge Judith Rodgers, joined by Judges Robert Wilkins and David Sentelle, rejected the government&apos;s argument that the district court misunderstood and misapplied economic principles and erroneously disregarded testimony by key government witnesses. United States v. AT&amp;T, Inc., Docket No. 1:17-cv-02511 (D.C. Cir. 2019).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2019 18:09:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/DC-Circuit-Holds-That-DOJ-Failed-To-Prove-ATT-Time-Warner-Merger-Is-Anticompetitive</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Reversing Prior Order, Utah District Court Holds Per Se Rule Applies To Customer Allocation Agreement
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Reversing-Prior-Order-Utah-District-Court-Holds-Per-Se-Rule</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On February 21, 2019, Judge David Sam of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah reversed course and found that a per se standard applies to a market allocation agreement among competitors in the heir location services market. Judge Sam initially found that the more lenient rule of reason standard should apply. However, following a recent Tenth Circuit ruling, Judge Sam held it is the form of the agreement—not the type of industry—that compels the appropriate standard of review. United States of America, v. Kemp &amp; Associates, Inc. and Daniel J. Mannix, No. 2:16CR403 DS, 2019 WL 763796 (D. Utah Feb. 21, 2019).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Mar 2019 01:46:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Reversing-Prior-Order-Utah-District-Court-Holds-Per-Se-Rule</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Delaware District Court Dismisses Antitrust Suit Against Lab Testing Company Alleging Conspiracy To Exclude Smaller Lab From Market
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Delaware-District-Court-Dismisses-Antitrust-Suit-</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On February 14, 2019, Judge Maryellen Noreika of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware dismissed a complaint alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.  Prescient Medicine Holdings, LLC v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings et al, No. 1:18-cv-00600 (D. Del. Feb 14. 2019).  The complaint was filed by Prescient Medicine Holdings, LLC, a provider of laboratory testing services.  Plaintiff alleged that an agreement between a competitor laboratory testing service—Laboratory Corporation of America and Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (&quot;LabCorp&quot;)—and a managed care organization—AmeriHealth, Inc. and AmeriHealth Caritas Delaware Inc. (&quot;AmeriHealth&quot;) was a collusive scheme to monopolize the in-network Medicaid market and exclude plaintiff from that market.  Judge Noreika held that plaintiff failed to adequately plead antitrust standing and failed to define a relevant market. ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2019 15:49:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Delaware-District-Court-Dismisses-Antitrust-Suit-</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Ninth Circuit Reinstates $53 Million Jury Award Against Supplier In &quot;Refusal to Deal&quot; Monopolization Action
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-Reinstates-53-Million-Jury-Award-Against</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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&apos;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. ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2019 17:45:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-Reinstates-53-Million-Jury-Award-Against</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>The Eastern District Of Michigan Holds That An Arbitration Clause Does Not Apply To Direct Purchasers In A Private Suit Alleging Price-Fixing
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/The-Eastern-District-Of-Michigan-Holds-That-An-Arbitration</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 29, 2019, the Honorable Judge Marianne O. Battani of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied without a hearing Defendant KYB Corporation&apos;s and KYB America&apos;s (collectively, the &quot;Company&quot;) motion to dismiss all federal antitrust claims because those claims were subject to an arbitration clause.  In re Shock Absorbers, Master File No. 12-md-02311 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 29, 2019).  In so finding, the Court denied the Company&apos;s 30(b)(1) motion and concluded that the Court had subject matter jurisdiction.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2019 18:55:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/The-Eastern-District-Of-Michigan-Holds-That-An-Arbitration</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Department Of Justice Seeks To Intervene In No-Poach Class Action To Counter Arguments That Such Agreements Are Per Se Illegal
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Department-Of-Justice-Seeks-To-Intervene-In-No-Poach-Class-Action</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 25, 2019, the Justice Department&apos;s Antitrust Division filed a Notice of Intent to File a Statement of Interest in Myrriah Richmond et al. v. Bergey Pullman Inc., et al., No. 2:18-cv-00246, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.  The Notice follows a barrage of settlements between fast-food chains and state antitrust enforcers involving the chains&apos; &quot;no-poach&quot; agreements—that is, agreements between a franchisor and franchisees that restrict the hiring of one franchisee&apos;s employees by another franchisee.  The Justice Department&apos;s decision to involve itself in Myrriah Richmond is significant.  By emphasizing—as its Notice did—that such franchisor-franchisee no-poach agreements are &quot;vertical restraints&quot; subject to the rule-of-reason (rather than illegal per se, or subject to only a &quot;quick look&quot; analysis of legality), the Justice Department provides analytic clarity and useful guidance as courts address the growing number of actions challenging different variations of no-poach agreements in different factual scenarios.

 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2019 21:07:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Department-Of-Justice-Seeks-To-Intervene-In-No-Poach-Class-Action</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Middle District Of Florida Limits Statute Of Limitations Tolling Arguments For Alleged Output Restrictions In Milk Market
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Middle-District-Of-Florida-Limits-Statute-Of-Limitations-Tolling-Arguments-For-Alleged-Output</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 16, 2019, Judge Brian J. Davis of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants&apos; motion for summary judgment.  Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Southeast Milk, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01143 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 16, 2019).  The Court ruled that plaintiffs should not receive equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for fraudulent concealment, that only a limited subset of claims were eligible for class action tolling, and that other theories for the timeliness of plaintiffs&apos; claims depended on the jury&apos;s determination of the facts.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2019 18:24:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Middle-District-Of-Florida-Limits-Statute-Of-Limitations-Tolling-Arguments-For-Alleged-Output</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>United States District Court For The Eastern District of New York Rejects One-Sided Market And Single-Brand Market Definitions In Credit Card Antitrust Litigation
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/United-States-District-Court-For-The-Eastern-District-NY-Rejects-One-Sided-Market</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 14, 2019, Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted defendant American Express&apos; motion for summary judgment as to three of the four relevant markets proposed by the plaintiffs in their antitrust challenge to the &quot;anti-steering&quot; provisions in American Express&apos;s merchant contracts.  In re American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation, No. 11-MD-2221 (NGG) (RER) (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2019).  Following the U.S. Supreme Court&apos;s 2018 decision in a parallel challenge to the same contractual provisions by the U.S. Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) and several states, Ohio v. American Express Company, 138 S. Ct. 2274 (2018), Judge Garaufis rejected the retail merchant plaintiffs&apos; proposed product market definitions that were limited to the merchant side of card transactions, i.e., the &quot;one-sided&quot; markets, finding that the Supreme Court&apos;s decision required an examination of competition on both sides of the credit card platform - the cardholder side and the merchant side - i.e., the &quot;two-sided&quot; market.  The court also rejected the plaintiffs&apos; attempt to limit the relevant product market to American Express card transactions (the &quot;Amex-only market&quot;) because other general purpose credit and charge cards are reasonably interchangeable with American Express cards and therefore in the same relevant product market.  American Express did not move for summary judgment on the plaintiffs&apos; two-sided, all general purpose credit card market definition, and the case will proceed to trial on that theory.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2019 19:22:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/United-States-District-Court-For-The-Eastern-District-NY-Rejects-One-Sided-Market</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Northern District Of California Rejects Claim Of Bi-Coastal Conspiracy To Eliminate Restaurant Tipping
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Rejects-Claim-Bi-Coastal-Conspiracy-Eliminate-Restaurant-Tippi</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 7, 2019, Judge Jeffrey S. White of the Northern District of California ruled on a motion to dismiss allegations that certain high-end restaurant groups in New York and California had conspired to terminate the practice of tipping in restaurants, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and various state laws.  Judge White held that plaintiff&apos;s claims were too speculative to sustain an inference that defendants could — or had any reason to — conspire, and dismissed all claims.  Brown v. 140 NM LLC et al., No. 4:17-cv-05782 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2019).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jan 2019 18:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Rejects-Claim-Bi-Coastal-Conspiracy-Eliminate-Restaurant-Tippi</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>District Court Rejects Motion To Dismiss Antitrust Claims In Data Analytics Joint Venture
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/District-Court-Rejects-Motion-To-Dismiss-Antitrust-Claims-In-Data-Analytics-Joint-Venture</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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&apos; 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.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2019 17:37:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/District-Court-Rejects-Motion-To-Dismiss-Antitrust-Claims-In-Data-Analytics-Joint-Venture</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Seventh Circuit Affirms District Court&apos;s Grant Of Summary Judgment Of Class Action Case Alleging Price-Fixing In Containerboard Market
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Seventh-Circuit-Affirms-District-Courtrsquos-Grant</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On December 7, 2018, the United Stated Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in an opinion by Chief Judge Diane P. Wood, affirmed a district court&apos;s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of two defendants remaining in a class action alleging price-fixing by manufacturers of containerboard.  Kleen Products LLC, et al. v. Georgia-Pacific LLC, et al., No. 17-2808 (7th Cir. Dec. 7, 2018).  The Court rejected plaintiffs&apos; contention that the existence of an anticompetitive agreement between manufacturers could be inferred based primarily on allegedly correlated price increases and reductions in supply.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2018 20:47:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Seventh-Circuit-Affirms-District-Courtrsquos-Grant</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Oregon District Court Allows Claim Against Association Of Colleges And Universities To Proceed And Accepts Harm To Defendant&apos;s Members As Evidence Of Antitrust Injury
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Oregon-District-Court-Allows-Claim-Against-Association</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 28, 2018, Judge Marco A. Hern&amp;aacute;ndez 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).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2018 19:52:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Oregon-District-Court-Allows-Claim-Against-Association</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Western District Of Washington Rejects Per Se Rule, But Allows Cinnabon Worker&apos;s No-Poach Class Action To Proceed After &quot;Quick Look&quot; Analysis
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Western-District-Of-Washington-Rejects-Per-Se-Rule-Allows-No-Poach-Class-Action-to-Proceed</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 13, 2018, Judge Robert J. Bryan of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington denied a motion to dismiss a class action complaint by a former fast-food worker alleging that the company&apos;s agreement to prohibit the re-hiring of one franchisee&apos;s employees by another franchisee violates the Sherman Antitrust Act.  Yi v. SK Bakeries LLC, et al., No. 3:18-cv-05627, Dkt. No. 33 (W.D. Wa. Nov. 13, 2018).  Judge Bryan did, however, caution plaintiff against relying solely on a &quot;quick look&quot; theory, and suggested that whether franchisees are, in fact, a &quot;single entity&quot; incapable of conspiring with one another is a fact-specific question that did not merit a pleading-stage dismissal.
 ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2018 17:52:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Western-District-Of-Washington-Rejects-Per-Se-Rule-Allows-No-Poach-Class-Action-to-Proceed</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Northern District Of California Holds That Commitments Made In Industry Standard Setting Required Chipmaker To License Standard-Essential Patents To &quot;All Comers,&quot; Including Competitors
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-California-Commitments-Made-Industry-Standard-Setting-Required-Patent-License</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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 (&quot;FTC&quot;) 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&apos;n v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 17-CV-00220 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2018).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2018 15:32:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-California-Commitments-Made-Industry-Standard-Setting-Required-Patent-License</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>District Of New Jersey Denies Class Certification Based On Presence Of Uninjured Class Members In Proposed Class
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/District-Of-New-Jersey-Denies-Class-Certification-based-on-presence-uninjured-class-members</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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 &quot;Company&quot;) 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 &quot;reasonable and workable plan&quot; 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) (&quot;Opinion&quot;). In so holding, Judge Arleo relied heavily on the First Circuit&apos;s recent decision in In re Asacol Antitrust Litig., which reversed a district court&apos;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.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2018 16:03:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/District-Of-New-Jersey-Denies-Class-Certification-based-on-presence-uninjured-class-members</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>First Circuit Reverses Class Certification Based On Presence Of Uninjured Class Members In Certified Class
 
</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/First-Circuit-Reverses-Class-Certification-Based</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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&apos;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 &quot;reasonable and workable plan&quot; 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). ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2018 18:57:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/First-Circuit-Reverses-Class-Certification-Based</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Eastern District Of Pennsylvania Dismisses Antitrust Suit Against Lab Testing Company Alleging Unfair Competition In Specialized Testing Services
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eastern-District-Of-Pennsylvania-Dismisses-Antitrust-Suit-Against-Lab-Testing-Company</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On October 9, 2018, Judge Gerald J. Pappert of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted defendant Independence Blue Cross&apos;s (&quot;IBC&quot;) and defendant Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings&apos;s (&quot;LabCorp&quot;) motions for summary judgment on an unfair competition claim filed by Medical Diagnostic Laboratories, LLC (&quot;MDL&quot;).  MDL is a lab testing company that provides specialized testing services for sexually transmitted infections.  MDL alleged that defendants violated Sherman Act Section 1 and Pennsylvania state unfair competition law, and tortiously interfered with existing and prospective relationships with healthcare providers, by requiring IBC in-network providers to exclusively refer patients needing lab work to LabCorp.  The Court granted defendants&apos; motions to dismiss the Section 1 and tortious interference with existing business relationships claims on August 30, 2017, but allowed MDL to take discovery on its claims of tortious interference with prospective contractual relations and unfair competition.  In his summary judgment opinion, Judge Pappert rejected these remaining claims.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2018 14:54:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eastern-District-Of-Pennsylvania-Dismisses-Antitrust-Suit-Against-Lab-Testing-Company</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Southern District Of New York Dismisses Benchmark Manipulation Claims Against Banks Not Involved In Setting Benchmark, But Allows Claims To Proceed Against Panel Banks
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-Of-New-York-Dismisses-Benchmark</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[ 
On October 4, 2018, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed, with prejudice, claims that certain banks engaged in an industry-wide conspiracy to manipulate various Singapore financial benchmarks in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, while simultaneously ruling that claims against other defendants that were involved in setting the benchmark could proceed.  The Court also found that it did not have jurisdiction over defendant banks that were not members of the panel that set the financial benchmark at issue, and therefore dismissed plaintiffs&apos; claims against those defendants.  Frontpoint Asian Event Driven Fund v. Citibank, 16 Civ. 5263 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2018).
]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2018 15:26:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-Of-New-York-Dismisses-Benchmark</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Northern District Of California Applies FTAIA To Price-Fixing Claims Based On Various Extraterritorial Purchasing Scenarios
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Applies-FTAIA-To-Price-Fixing-Claims</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 20, 2018, Judge James Donato of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants&apos; motion for summary judgment on the issue of the applicability of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act, 15 U.S.C. &amp;sect; 6a (&quot;FTAIA&quot;) to specific categories of claims.  Judge Donato also addressed a question left open in a prior order regarding whether a state antitrust or consumer protection law might apply less broadly than the FTAIA.  In re Capacitors Antitrust Litig. (No.III), Case No. 17-md-02801-JD (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2018).  Judge Donato&apos;s decision clarifies the application of the FTAIA to various categories of extraterritorial transactions allegedly affected by a price-fixing conspiracy.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Oct 2018 16:17:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Applies-FTAIA-To-Price-Fixing-Claims</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>United States District Court For The District Of Minnesota Rejects Sherman Act Section 2 Suit Against Food Packaging Company Predicated On Sham Litigation And Discount Bundling Claims
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/United-States-District-Court-For-The-District-Of-Minnesota</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 5, 2018, Judge Ann D. Montgomery of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota issued a decision ruling rejecting a food packaging company&apos;s allegations that the largest company in the market maintained its dominant position through unlawful discount bundling and sham intellectual property claims.  Inline Packaging, LLC v. Graphic Packaging International, LLC, No. 0:15-cv-03183-ADM-LIB (D. Minn. Sept. 5, 2018).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2018 19:02:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/United-States-District-Court-For-The-District-Of-Minnesota</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>District Of New Jersey Finds State Antitrust And Consumer Protection Claims Based On Allegedly Fraudulent Procurement And Enforcement Of Patents And Related Reverse-Payment Agreement Not Preempted By Federal Patent Law
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/District-Of-New-Jersey-Finds-State-Antitrust-And-Consumer-Protection-Claims-not-preempted</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 18, 2018, Judge Peter G. Sheridan of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted in part and denied in part a defense motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) seeking dismissal of state antitrust and consumer protection claims based on the allegedly fraudulent procurement and enforcement of certain pharmaceutical patents and a related alleged pay-for-delay scheme.  In re Effexor Antitrust Litig., No. 3:11-cv-05661 (D.N.J. Sept. 18, 2018).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2018 15:50:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/District-Of-New-Jersey-Finds-State-Antitrust-And-Consumer-Protection-Claims-not-preempted</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>District Of Columbia Releases Redacted Opinion Detailing Reasoning Behind Decision To Grant Preliminary Injunction In Tronox-Cristal Acquisition
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/District-Of-Columbia-Releases-Redacted-Opinion-Detailing-reasoning-behind-decision</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On September 5, 2018, Judge Trevor N. McFadden of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the Federal Trade Commission&apos;s request for a preliminary injunction preventing Tronox Ltd. (&quot;Tronox&quot;) from completing its proposed $2.4 billion acquisition of National Titanium Dioxide Company Ltd. (&quot;Cristal&quot;) until after a final ruling in the FTC&apos;s administrative proceedings challenging the deal.  Federal Trade Commission v. Tronox Ltd., et al., 1:18-cv-01622 (TNM) (D.D.C. Sept. 12, 2018).Tronox intends to appeal and will consider whether to proceed with a divestiture to resolve potential competitive concerns.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2018 16:46:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/District-Of-Columbia-Releases-Redacted-Opinion-Detailing-reasoning-behind-decision</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Illinois District Court Denies Sandwich Franchisor&apos;s Motion To Dismiss Sherman Act Claim Alleging Damages From No-Poach Agreement
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Illinois-District-Court-Denies-Sandwich-Franchisors-Sandwich</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 31, 2018, Judge Michael J. Reagan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted in part and denied in part defendant-franchisor&apos;s motion to dismiss an antitrust claim filed by a purported class of former employees of defendant&apos;s franchisees.  Butler v. Jimmy John&apos;s Franchise, LLC, No. 18-CV-0133-MJR-RJD, 2018 WL 3631577 (S.D. Ill. July 31, 2018).  Plaintiffs alleged that provisions included in defendant&apos;s franchise agreements with its franchisees in which the franchisees agreed not to hire each other&apos;s employees—commonly known as &quot;no-poach&quot; agreements—violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act and various state antitrust laws by suppressing employee wages and mobility in the labor market.  Defendants moved to dismiss all claims, arguing that plaintiffs failed to allege an injury that would confer Article III standing, and that plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege an antitrust conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2018 16:04:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Illinois-District-Court-Denies-Sandwich-Franchisors-Sandwich</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>The Ninth Circuit Affirms Implied Antitrust Immunity For USA Track &amp; Field And The United States Olympic Committee
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/The-Ninth-Circuit-Affirms-Implied-Antitrust-Immunity</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 7, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court holding that USA Track &amp; Field and the United States Olympic Committee were immune to antitrust liability for imposing advertising restrictions during the Olympic Trials for track and field athletes.  Gold Medal LLC v. USA Track &amp; Field, No. 6:16-cv-00092-MC (9th Cir. Aug. 7, 2018).  The Court held that defendants were entitled to implied antitrust immunity because the advertising restriction was integral to performance of their statutory duties under the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act (&quot;ASA&quot;) to fund the U.S. Olympic Team.  Plaintiff alleged that the defendants&apos; anticompetitive conspiracy imposing advertising restrictions that excluded certain sponsors from the Olympic Trials for track and field athletes violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2018 19:02:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/The-Ninth-Circuit-Affirms-Implied-Antitrust-Immunity</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Ninth Circuit Upholds Dismissal Of Antitrust Suit Against The Anheuser-Busch InBev And SABMiller Merger
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-Upholds-Dismissal-Of-Antitrust-Suit-Against-Anheuser-Busch-SABMiller-Merger</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 8, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a dismissal of an antitrust class action by beer consumers that challenged the acquisition of SABMiller (&quot;SAB&quot;) by Anheuser-Busch InBev (&quot;ABI&quot;).  In an opinion by Judge Margaret McKeown, the Ninth Circuit held that the beer consumers failed to state a claim under Section 7 of the Clayton Act because: (1) ABI did not actually acquire a competitor in the U.S. beer market; (2) ABI did not acquire a &quot;potential competitor&quot; in the U.S. beer market; and (3) the consumers&apos; concern that the acquisition would significantly increase the threat of post-merger coordination between the last remaining market players, ABI and Molson Coors Brewing Company (&quot;Molson&quot;), was speculative.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2018 19:19:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-Upholds-Dismissal-Of-Antitrust-Suit-Against-Anheuser-Busch-SABMiller-Merger</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Southern District Of New York Dismisses Silver Benchmark Manipulation And Silver Trading Conspiracy Claims
 
</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-Of-New-York-Dismisses-Silver-Be</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 25, 2018, Judge Valerie E. Caproni of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with prejudice claims that certain banks participated in a conspiracy to (a) manipulate the London Silver Fixing, and (b) engage in manipulation of silver spot markets and futures markets in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Court held that plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that these banks—which did not participate in the London Silver Fixing—were part of the alleged conspiracy to manipulate that benchmark. The Court also dismissed other conspiracy claims on antitrust standing grounds, based on the remoteness of the injuries allegedly suffered by plaintiffs and the dangers of disproportionate recovery that this remoteness would present. The Court also dismissed claims that the alleged conduct violated the Commodity Exchange Act (&quot;CEA&quot;) and justified recovery under an unjust enrichment theory.
 
]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2018 19:35:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-Of-New-York-Dismisses-Silver-Be</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Georgia District Court Denies Class Certification To Plaintiffs Alleging Conspiracy To Delay Release of Generic Versions Of Testosterone Replacement Drug
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Georgia-District-Court-Denies-Class-Certification</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 16, 2018, in the latest development in the litigation over the &quot;reverse payment&quot; settlements relating to the pharmaceutical testosterone replacement AndroGel that the Supreme Court addressed in FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 570 U.S. 136 (2013), Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied class certification to a proposed class of direct purchaser plaintiffs. In re AndroGel Antitrust Litigation (No. II), No. 2084, 2018 WL 3424612 (N.D. Ga. July 15, 2018). ]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2018 20:31:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Georgia-District-Court-Denies-Class-Certification</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Illinois District Court Dismisses Complaint Alleging Conspiracy To Restrict Supply And Increase The Price Of Intravenous Saline Solution
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Illinois-District-Court-Dismisses-Complaint-Alleging</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On July 5, 2018, Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted defendant intravenous saline (&quot;IV saline&quot;) bag manufacturers&apos; motion to dismiss a complaint filed by a purported class of IV saline purchasers alleging that defendants conspired to restrict the output and raise the price of IV saline solution in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  Washington County Health Care Auth., Inc., et al. v. Baxter Int&apos;l Inc., et al., No. 16 CV 10324 (N.D. Ill. July 5, 2018).  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants conspired to create an artificial shortage of IV saline solution by initiating a series of bogus voluntary recalls to deplete inventories of health care facilities in an effort to increase prices.  Defendants moved to dismiss the claims, arguing the complaint did not adequately allege the existence of an agreement to restrain the supply and increase the price of IV saline.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2018 18:15:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Illinois-District-Court-Dismisses-Complaint-Alleging</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>United States District Court For the Eastern District Of Pennsylvania Finds Violation Of FTC Act Section 5 By Pharmaceutical Companies And Orders $448 Million Disgorgement</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/United-States-District-Court-For-the-Eastern-District</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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, &quot;AbbVie&quot;), along with Besins Healthcare, Inc. (&quot;Besins&quot;), 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 (&quot;FTC&quot;) has achieved in a litigated antitrust case.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2018 19:17:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/United-States-District-Court-For-the-Eastern-District</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Eighth Circuit Dismisses Federal Antitrust Claims In Propane Action, Finding Plaintiffs Failed To Allege Injury Or Ongoing Conspiracy By Defendants
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eighth-Circuit-Dismisses-Federal-Antitrust-Claims</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 22, 2018, a three-judge panel on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part a district court decision granting summary judgment for defendants and dismissing antitrust claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, as well as the antitrust laws of 23 states and the District of Columbia, against two propane gas companies. Mario Ortiz et al. v. Ferrellgas Partners et al., No. 16-4086 (8th Cir. June 22, 2018).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2018 19:13:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eighth-Circuit-Dismisses-Federal-Antitrust-Claims</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>United States Supreme Court Upholds Rejection Of The Government&apos;s Antitrust Challenge To American Express&apos;s Merchant Contracts
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/United-States-Supreme-Court-Upholds-Rejection-Of-</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 25, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision by Justice Thomas, held that provisions in American Express Company&apos;s (&quot;American Express&quot; or &quot;Amex&quot;) and its operating subsidiary&apos;s contracts with merchants that restricted the ability of these merchants to steer customers to other credit or charge cards did not violate the Sherman Act. Ohio v. Am. Express Co., 585 U.S. __, slip op. at 1 (2018). The Court held that plaintiffs—the United States Department of Justice and the Attorneys General of several states—failed to satisfy their burden of proving anticompetitive effects in the relevant market under the rule of reason. Id. at 10. The ruling has important implications for antitrust analysis, not only for the credit card industry, but for other industries that operate in two-sided markets where firms must compete simultaneously for different groups of customers whose demands are distinct but deeply interrelated.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2018 01:35:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/United-States-Supreme-Court-Upholds-Rejection-Of-</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Jury In The Eastern District Of Pennsylvania Finds No Liability For Egg Producers In Alleged Price Fixing Suit</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Jury-In-The-Eastern-District-Of-Pennsylvania-Find</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On June 14, 2018, a jury in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found three egg producers not liable for violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act based on an alleged conspiracy to restrict the supply of egg-laying hens and artificially inflate the price of eggs. In re Processed Eggs Prods. Antitrust Litig., 2:08-md-02002 (E.D. Pa. June 14, 2018).]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2018 19:56:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Jury-In-The-Eastern-District-Of-Pennsylvania-Find</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>United States District Court For The District Of Columbia Rejects DOJ Challenge To AT&amp;T-Time Warner Merger</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/United-States-District-Court-For-The-District-Of-Columbia</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On June 12, 2018, following a six-week-long bench trial, Judge Richard J. Leon of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that AT&amp;T&apos;s proposed acquisition of Time Warner does not violate the antitrust laws, rejecting the United States Department of Justice&apos;s (DOJ) challenge to the merger. United States v. AT&amp;T Inc., Civil Case No. 17-2511 (RJL) (D.D.C. June 12, 2018). This case—the first vertical merger challenge tried by the Justice Department since 1977—demonstrates the difficulty in challenging mergers where a competitor is not eliminated by the transaction.

Read more.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2018 18:36:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/United-States-District-Court-For-The-District-Of-Columbia</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>United States Supreme Court Rules That Foreign Government Submissions As To Disputed Issues Of Foreign Law, While Entitled To Deference, Are Not Binding On U.S. Courts</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/United-States-Supreme-Court-Rules-That-Foreign</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On June 14, 2018, Justice Ginsburg, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, revived Sherman Act claims against Chinese vitamin manufacturers, reversing a 2016 opinion by the Second Circuit in In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation, 837 F.3d 175 (2d Cir. 2016), and holding that a foreign government&apos;s interpretation of its own law is not binding on U.S. courts. Animal Science Prods., Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharm. Co., No. 16-1220 (June 14, 2018).

Read more.]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2018 18:18:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/United-States-Supreme-Court-Rules-That-Foreign</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Utah District Court Denies Defendants&apos; Motion To Dismiss Complaint Alleging Restraint Of Trade In Online Lens Retail Market
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Utah-District-Court-Denies-Defendants-Motion</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 17, 2018, Judge Tena Campbell of the United States District Court for the District of Utah denied three leading contact lens retailer defendants&apos; motion to dismiss a putative class action complaint alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  J. Thompson, et al. v. 1-800 Contacts, et al., Case No. 2:16-CV-1183-TC (D. Utah May 17, 2018).  Plaintiffs, who purchased contact lenses online from defendants, alleged that they paid artificially-inflated prices for those contact lenses due to defendants&apos; anticompetitive trademark litigation settlement agreements.  Defendants moved to dismiss the claims because the plaintiffs lacked antitrust standing, failed to properly plead a relevant product market, did not allege a single overarching conspiracy, and with respect to damages claims prior to 2012, failed to file a lawsuit within the Clayton Act&apos;s four-year statute of limitations.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jun 2018 18:34:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Utah-District-Court-Denies-Defendants-Motion</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>United States Federal Trade Commission Administrative Law Judge Dismisses Complaint Challenging Reverse Payment Settlement Between Pharmaceutical Manufacturers
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/United-States-Federal-Trade-Commission-Administrative</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 11, 2018, U.S. Federal Trade Commission (&quot;FTC&quot;) Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell issued an initial decision ruling that a reverse payment settlement by Endo Pharmaceuticals (&quot;Endo&quot;) with Impax Laboratories (&quot;Impax&quot;) did not violate Section 5 of the FTC Act, and dismissing the FTC&apos;s complaint.  In the Matter of Impax Labs., Inc., Docket No. 9373 (Initial Decision, May 11, 2018).  Judge Chappell concluded that despite the reverse payment Endo made to Impax, the anticompetitive harm arising from the settlement was &quot;largely theoretical,&quot; and that the settlement&apos;s procompetitive benefits outweighed any anticompetitive effect from the agreement.  The initial decision is the first administrative ruling on a reverse payment trial since the U.S. Supreme Court&apos;s 2013 Actavis decision.  The decision has been noticed for appeal to the Commission.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 18:24:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/United-States-Federal-Trade-Commission-Administrative</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Ninth Circuit Overturns Dismissal Of Antitrust Suit Against City&apos;s Ordinance Allowing App-Based Drivers To Collectively Bargain
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-Overturns-Dismissal-Of-Antitrust-Suit</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 11, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court partially reversed the district court&apos;s dismissal of claims brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, on behalf of ride-share app companies, that a Seattle ordinance allowing for-hire drivers to bargain collectively violated and was preempted by the antitrust laws.  In an opinion by Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith, the Ninth Circuit held that the state-action defense did not protect the ordinance from preemption by the Sherman Act because:  (1) the State of Washington had not clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed a state policy authorizing for-hire drivers to fix the prices of their service fees when using a ride-share app; and (2) the active-supervision requirement of the state-action defense was not met.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2018 16:21:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-Overturns-Dismissal-Of-Antitrust-Suit</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Federal Judge Reverses Course, Will Consider Volume Of Commerce In Sentencing For Criminal Antitrust Convictions
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Federal-Judge-Reverses-Course-Will-Consider-Volume</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On May 7, 2018, Judge Charles Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California affirmed that volume of commerce (&quot;VOC&quot;) is a necessary factor in determining the appropriate sentence for criminal antitrust convictions.  This represents a reversal from his earlier comments at an April 26, 2018 hearing, where Judge Breyer said he would ignore the VOC in sentencing 23 individuals for their roles in a conspiracy to rig bids at public real estate foreclosure auctions. 

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2018 17:31:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Federal-Judge-Reverses-Course-Will-Consider-Volume</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Northern District Of California Rejects Motion To Dismiss Sherman Act Claims Against Parties To A Joint Venture In The Vanity Mobile Dial Code Market
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Rejects-Motion-To-Dismiss-Sherman</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On April 19, 2018, Judge Beth L. Freeman of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied defendants&apos; 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]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2018 15:29:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Rejects-Motion-To-Dismiss-Sherman</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Eastern District Of New York Holds That Group Boycott Of Online Dental Marketplace Must Go To Trial
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eastern-District-Of-New-York-Holds-That-Group-Boycott</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On April 13, 2018, Judge Brian M. Cogan of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied defendants&apos;—two leading dental supply distributors—motions for summary judgement.  Plaintiff SourceOne, a nascent competitor in the dental supply distribution market, partnered with the Texas Dental Association (TDA) to launch an online marketplace in competition with the larger distributors, including defendants.  Plaintiff alleged that the two defendants and a third leading dental supply distributor (who settled early in the case), which collectively controlled 80 percent of the dental supply distribution in the United States, conspired to boycott the TDA and Arizona Dental Association trade shows in an effort to harm plaintiff. 

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2018 20:21:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eastern-District-Of-New-York-Holds-That-Group-Boycott</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>DOJ Enters Into Settlement Ending No-Poach Agreements In The Rail Equipment Supplier Industry
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Enters-Into-Settlement-Ending-No-Poach-Agreement</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
​On April 3, 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice (&quot;DOJ&quot;) filed a simultaneous Complaint and Stipulation in its investigation into no-poach agreements—defined as agreements between competitors not to compete for employees—between Knorr-Bremse AG (&quot;Knorr&quot;) and Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation (&quot;Wabtec&quot;) in the rail equipment supplier industry.  DOJ took a broad view of the scope of such agreements to include both the solicitation and hiring of employees, and to include both the hiring of employees located domestically and those located internationally and hired to work in the United States.  Prior enforcement actions of no-poach cases had brought only civil charges; however, DOJ has recently announced its intent to seek criminal charges in policy guidance published in October 2016.  In this action, DOJ exercised its prosecutorial discretion in deciding not to bring criminal charges.  Nevertheless, this appears to be the first step in DOJ&apos;s efforts to step-up enforcement consistent with the recent public statements of Makan Delrahim, Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division. 

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2018 18:48:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/DOJ-Enters-Into-Settlement-Ending-No-Poach-Agreement</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Third Circuit Upholds Dismissal Of Attempted Monopolization Claims For Failure To Allege An Antitrust Violation Or Antitrust Injury
 
</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Third-Circuit-Upholds-Dismissal-Of-Attempted-Mono</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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 (&quot;PTA&quot;) and 80 individual taxicab companies against a leading ride-hailing company.  Phila. Taxi Ass&apos;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.
 
]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2018 19:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Third-Circuit-Upholds-Dismissal-Of-Attempted-Mono</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>U.S. District Court For The Northern District Of California Rejects Class Certification Of Indirect Purchasers In Lithium Ion Battery Price-Fixing Litigation Based On Plaintiffs&apos; Failure To Address Focal Point Pricing 
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/US-District-Court-For-The-Northern-District-Of-California</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On March 5, 2018, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied class certification for a group of indirect purchasers alleging price fixing in the sale of lithium batteries, holding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they had a reliable method of proving pass-through of the alleged overcharges on a class-wide basis.  In so holding, the Court relied primarily on the plaintiffs&apos; expert&apos;s failure to account for the effects of &quot;focal point pricing,&quot; the practice of pricing consumer products at certain attractive retail price points, for example, $799 or $1299. 

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2018 21:10:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/US-District-Court-For-The-Northern-District-Of-California</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Southern District Of New York Denies Certification To Two Putative Classes And Grants Partial Certification To A Third In LIBOR Rate Manipulation Litigation
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-Of-New-York-Denies-Certification</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On February 28, 2018, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the Southern District of New York denied class certification to two proposed classes in the LIBOR rate manipulation litigation, while granting partial certification to a third class.  In re LIBOR-Based Fin. Instruments Antitrust Litig., No 1:11-cv-02613-NRB (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2018).  At issue in this thorough 366-page decision were three proposed classes:  (1) the &quot;exchange-based&quot; class, (2) the &quot;lender&quot; class, and (3) the &quot;over-the-counter&quot; or &quot;OTC&quot; class, all seeking to recover damages based on alleged manipulation of the London Inter-bank Offered Rate (&quot;LIBOR&quot;).  

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2018 20:19:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-Of-New-York-Denies-Certification</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Second Circuit Revives Schwab&apos;s Claims Flowing From Alleged LIBOR Manipulation
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Revives-Schwabrsquos-Claims-Flowing</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On February 23, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated portions of Judge Buchwald&apos;s 2015 opinion that had dismissed claims brought by Charles Schwab Corp. and affiliates against over a dozen banks alleged to have manipulated U.S. Dollar LIBOR for lack of personal jurisdiction for state-law claims and a failure to link the alleged manipulation to damages for Securities Exchange Act claims.  Charles Schwab Corp., et al. v. Bank of America Corp., et al., 16-1189-cv (2d Cir. Feb. 23, 2018).  Schwab had been among the many plaintiffs to pursue claims against LIBOR panel banks under the antitrust laws, but—while the dismissal of those claims was pending appeal before the Second Circuit—Schwab initiated a parallel action against LIBOR panel banks, alleging California common law fraud and unjust enrichment claims, statutory claims under California&apos;s Business and Professions Code, and claims under the Securities Exchange Act.  The district court dismissed the complaint in its entirety, holding that (i) personal jurisdiction was lacking for the state law claims because the alleged manipulation took place outside of the U.S.; and (ii) the complaint failed to allege facts in support of a Securities Exchange Act claim because it failed to connect the suppression of LIBOR to any damages suffered by Schwab.  In re LIBOR-based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litig., 2015 WL 6243526, *70 (Oct. 20, 2015 S.D.N.Y.).  The Second Circuit vacated these rulings, directing the district court to grant Schwab leave to amend its complaint to address a number of issues identified in the opinion. 

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2018 21:36:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Second-Circuit-Revives-Schwabrsquos-Claims-Flowing</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>District Of Delaware Denies Building Supply Company&apos;s Motion To Dismiss Claims That It Monopolized And Unlawfully Restrained Trade In The Ceiling Tile Market Through Exclusive Agreements
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/District-Of-Delaware-Denies-Building-Supply-Companys-Motion</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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.&apos;s (&quot;Armstrong&quot;) motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by rival ceiling tile manufacturer Roxul USA Inc. (&quot;Roxul&quot;), 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&apos;s motion to dismiss Roxul&apos;s claims relating to the sale of ceiling tiles in Canada because Roxul failed to allege how reduced competition in Canada had a &quot;direct, substantial and reasonably foreseeable effect&quot; on U.S. commerce, as required by the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (&quot;FTAIA&quot;). 

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 2018 17:09:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/District-Of-Delaware-Denies-Building-Supply-Companys-Motion</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Eastern District Of Pennsylvania Court Rules In Favor Of Philadelphia Parking Authority In Taxicabs&apos; Suit Alleging Failure To Regulate Emerging Competitors 
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eastern-District-Of-Pennsylvania-Court-Rules-In-Favor</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
​On January 29, 2018, Judge Michael M. Baylson of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment in favor of the Philadelphia Parking Authority (&quot;PPA&quot;) and turned down the damage claims filed by Checker Cab Philadelphia, Inc. and several other medallion-holding taxicab companies (collectively &quot;Checker&quot;) against PPA for their alleged failure to adequately regulate alternative transportation network companies like Uber and Lyft (collectively, &quot;TNCs&quot;).  Checker Cab Philadelphia Inc. v. Philadelphia Parking Authority, 2:16-cv-04669 (E.D. Pa. 2018).  Judge Baylson held that TNCs and taxicab companies are not similarly situated, and that PPA should not be responsible for the taxicab companies&apos; alleged losses caused by increased competition in the transportation industry.  The Court summarized its holding as follows:  &quot;A court is not suited to protect market participants from competition, or from changing consumer preferences.  The marketplace still speaks loudly, probably louder than a court can, and the resolution of competitive combatants must take place in the marketplace, rather than in a courtroom.&quot;

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Feb 2018 18:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eastern-District-Of-Pennsylvania-Court-Rules-In-Favor</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>U.S. District Court For The District Of New Jersey Dismisses Class Action For Failure To Identify Concerted Action And Relevant Market</title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/US-District-Court-For-The-District-Of-New-Jersey-</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[On January 9, 2018, Judge William J. Martini of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed with prejudice a putative class action brought by a purchaser of Jaguar vehicles against Jaguar Land Rover North America LLC, Jaguar Land Rover Limited (collectively, the &quot;manufacturer defendants&quot;), their dealers, and a third-party consulting company.  Baar v. Jaguar Land Rover North Am., LLC, et al., No. 2:17-04142 (D.N.J. Jan. 9, 2018).  Plaintiff alleged that defendants unreasonably restrained trade by implementing and enforcing a no-export agreement that prohibited purchasers from reselling Jaguar&apos;s vehicles abroad for at least one year.  The Court held that the plaintiff&apos;s complaint failed to state a violation of federal or state antitrust laws because it did not adequately allege (1) concerted action among the defendants, or (2) that Jaguar&apos;s no-export policy produced anticompetitive effects within a cognizable antitrust product and geographic market.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2018 16:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/US-District-Court-For-The-District-Of-New-Jersey-</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>U.S. District Court For The Northern District Of Florida Holds That A Doctor Is Not An Efficient Enforcer Of The Antitrust Laws With Respect To An Alleged Conspiracy To Exclude Her From Practicing 
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/US-District-Court-For-The-Northern-District-Of-Fl</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On January 3, 2018, Judge Mark E. Walker granted defendant doctors&apos; motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by plaintiff Wendy Garlington, a rival practitioner, on grounds that Garlington was not an &quot;efficient enforcer&quot; of the antitrust laws, as required for antitrust standing under Section 4 of the Clayton Act.  This decision is consistent with a line of precedent from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit that sets a high bar under the efficient enforcer requirement for plaintiffs pursuing antitrust claims against competitive rivals in the medical services arena.  

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 2018 18:56:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/US-District-Court-For-The-Northern-District-Of-Fl</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Northern District Of California Rules International Comity Does Not Require Deference To Korean Supreme Court In In Re Korean Ramen
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Rules-Internation</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On December 28, 2017, Judge William Orrick of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied a motion for summary judgment by defendants facing antitrust claims alleging a conspiracy to fix the prices of Korean ramen.  In re Korean Ramen Antitrust Lit., No. 3:13-cv-4115-WHO (N.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2017).  In so ruling, Judge Orrick rejected defendants&apos; argument that principles of international comity required the Court to defer to a Korean Supreme Court decision overturning conspiracy findings and fines levied by the Korean Fair Trade Commission (&quot;KFTC&quot;).  The Court also ruled that there was sufficient evidence that the conspiracy impacted ramen prices in the United States, in particular for ramen manufactured in the United States, and that plaintiffs should therefore be permitted to move forward with their claims.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:58:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Rules-Internation</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Northern District Of California Dismisses Monopolization Claims By Hospital Operators For Failure To State A Claim  
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Dismisses-Monopol</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On December 7, 2017, Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a conspiracy to monopolize claim brought by two local hospital operators against Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc., and Permanente Medical Group, Inc.  Northbay Healthcare Grp., Inc., et al. v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., et al., No. 17-cv-05005-LB, 2017 WL 6059299 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2017).  The plaintiffs, who operate two hospitals in Solano County, California, alleged that defendants conspired to monopolize the healthcare insurance and services market in Solano County by (1) terminating their rate agreements with plaintiffs, and (2) steering patients to or away from defendants&apos; hospital emergency rooms based on the defendants&apos; financial incentives.  The Court dismissed the complaint, holding that plaintiffs did not adequately allege (1) a combination or conspiracy to monopolize, (2) specific intent to monopolize, or (3) a causal antitrust injury.  Finding these elements lacking, the Court did not address whether plaintiffs alleged an overt act in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy, the fourth element of the claim. 

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Dec 2017 20:18:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Dismisses-Monopol</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>United States District Court For The District Of Maryland Grants Summary Judgment To Non-Practicing Entity Intellectual Ventures Against Monopolization Counterclaims Alleging Sham Patent Litigation 
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/United-States-District-Court-For-The-District-Of-</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 30, 2017, Judge Paul W. Grimm of the United States District Court for the Southern Division of the District of Maryland granted Intellectual Ventures (&quot;IV&quot;) and affiliates&apos; motion for summary judgment on Capital One&apos;s antitrust counterclaims based on IV&apos;s alleged bad faith assertion of patent claims, concluding that Capital One&apos;s antitrust counterclaims were barred by both Noerr-Pennington immunity and collateral estoppel.   Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al v. Capital One Financial Corp., 8-14-cv-00111 (MDD 2017-12-01, Order).  The Court&apos;s thorough and careful opinion is a good illustration of the challenges of litigation over the conduct of a non-practicing patent-assertion entity, or as some would have it, a patent troll, under the Sherman Act.   

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2017 19:05:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/United-States-District-Court-For-The-District-Of-</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>European Union General Court Upholds Cartel Liability Of Facilitators, But Attempts To Rein In Commission&apos;s Approach In Settlements
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/European-Union-General-Court-Upholds-Cartel-Liabi</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 10, 2017, the European Union General Court (GC) handed down its judgment in Icap v Commission.  Judgment of the General Court in Case T-180/15 Icap and others v Commission, 10 November 2017.  This note examine three aspects of the decision: (1) the imposition of liability for cartel infringement on a &quot;facilitator&quot; who was not a primary participant in the cartel; (2) the Commission&apos;s procedural obligations with regard to settlement procedures in hybrid cases; and (3) the standard for a &quot;by object&quot; infringement of Article 101(1) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2017 19:04:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/European-Union-General-Court-Upholds-Cartel-Liabi</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>United States District Court For The Northern District Of Illinois Denies Motion To Dismiss Antitrust Claims Brought Against Nation&apos;s Largest Industrial Poultry Producers
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/United-States-District-Court-For-The-Northern-Dis</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 20, 2017, Judge Thomas M. Durkin of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a motion to dismiss antitrust claims filed against the nation&apos;s largest industrial poultry producers.  In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litig., No. 1:16-cv-08637 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 20, 2017).  In a lengthy opinion, Judge Durkin concluded that the totality of plaintiffs&apos; allegations of competitor communications, changes from historical practice, and arguably parallel restrictions in output, as well as the nature and operation of the commodity market at issue, were sufficient to raise a plausible inference of a conspiracy to restrict output and artificially inflate raise prices, and therefore to survive a motion to dismiss.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2017 18:19:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/United-States-District-Court-For-The-Northern-Dis</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Seventh Circuit Rejects Preliminary Injunction As Overbroad In Auto Dealership Management Software Case Alleging Agreement To Restrain Trade
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Seventh-Circuit-Rejects-Preliminary-Injunction-As</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On November 6, 2017, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a preliminary injunction in an action alleging an agreement in restraint of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act against defendants CDK Global, LLC and Reynolds &amp; Reynolds Co.  Authenticom, Inc. v. CDK Global LLC, No. 17‐cv‐318‐jdp (7th Cir. Nov. 6, 2017).  In an opinion by Chief Judge Diane Wood, the Court held that the preliminary injunction exceeded the proper scope of a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo and improperly imposed on the defendants a duty to deal with the plaintiff.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 2017 19:40:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Seventh-Circuit-Rejects-Preliminary-Injunction-As</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Sixth Circuit Holds That Homeowners Stated A Plausible Tying Claim Against Neighborhood Developers For Tying Purchase Of Telecommunications Services To The Sale Of Homes
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Sixth-Circuit-Holds-That-Homeowners-Stated-A-Plau</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On October 30, 2017, a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed a district court&apos;s denial of plaintiffs&apos; motion to file an amended complaint alleging that the defendants—a group of affiliated real estate development companies—illegally used their alleged market power in the sale of homes in three centrally planned neighborhoods to force the plaintiffs to purchase telecommunication services from another defendant, Crystal Clear Technologies, LLC, a telecommunications company that the developers owned and controlled.  Cates v. Crystal Clear Technologies, LLC, No. 16-6714 (6th Cir. Oct. 30, 2017).  The majority affirmed, however, the district court&apos;s dismissal of the plaintiffs&apos; claim that the arrangement between Crystal Clear and the defendant developers violated the Federal Communications Commission&apos;s &quot;Exclusivity Order&quot; (In the Matter of Exclusive Service Contracts For Provision Of Video Services In Multiple Dwelling Units and Other Real Estate Developments, 22 FCC Rcd. 20235, 20251 (2007), 47 C.F.R. &amp;sect; 76.2000(a)), which prohibits cable television distributors from entering into exclusive contracts to provide video programming, on the grounds that the complaint and contracts themselves contradicted the allegation that the contracts were in fact exclusive.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Nov 2017 19:50:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Sixth-Circuit-Holds-That-Homeowners-Stated-A-Plau</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Administrative Law Judge Upholds FTC Complaint Alleging That 1-800 Contacts Violated Section 5 Of The FTC Act By Unlawfully Restricting Online Competitor Advertising Through Anticompetitive Settlement Agreements
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Administrative-Law-Judge-Upholds-FTC-Complaint-Al</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On October 27, 2017, the Federal Trade Commission announced a ruling by Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell finding that online contact lens retailer 1-800 Contacts unlawfully restrained competition in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act by restricting its competitors&apos; online search-based advertising through series of settlement agreements resolving trademark litigation it had filed against those competitors.  In the Matter of 1-800 Contacts, Inc., Docket No. 9372 (U.S. Trade Commission, Oct. 27, 2017).  In upholding the FTC&apos;s complaint, ALJ Chappell found that the FTC had proved that the restrictions on the use of certain keywords in search-based advertising caused actual harm to consumers and competition in the market for the online sale of contact lenses in the United States and that the respondent 1-800 Contacts had failed to prove that the settlement agreements had countervailing procompetitive benefits that outweighed their harm to competition.  As relief, the ALJ issued a broad remedial order prohibiting 1-800 Contacts from, inter alia, entering into any agreement that restricts a competitor&apos;s ability to participate in search advertising auctions.  Just as the Supreme Court&apos;s landmark decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013), raised difficult questions as to how litigants could resolve patent disputes over pharmaceutical products, this decision raises difficult questions over potential settlements of trademark disputes, particularly in the context of internet search advertising.  

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Nov 2017 18:24:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Administrative-Law-Judge-Upholds-FTC-Complaint-Al</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Eastern District Of North Carolina Finds Plaintiff Plausibly Pleads Tying Claims In Foam Insulation Antitrust Case
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eastern-District-Of-North-Carolina-Finds-Plaintif</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On October 24, 2017, Judge Terrence W. Boyle of the Eastern District of North Carolina declined to dismiss monopolization and other antitrust claims based on alleged tying and exclusive dealing of foam insulation products against Armacell, Inc.  K-Flex, Inc. v. Armacell, Inc., No. 5:17-CV-279-BO (E.D.N.C. Oct. 24, 2017).  The Court held that plaintiff K-Flex, Inc.&apos;s complaint plausibly alleged that Armacell violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. &amp;sect;&amp;sect; 1 &amp; 2), Section 3 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. &amp;sect; 14), and North Carolina&apos;s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (N.C.G.S.A. &amp;sect;  75-1.1), by conditioning sales of one product - polyethylene or &quot;PE&quot; foam insulation, as to which Armacell had substantial market power - on the distributor&apos;s agreement to purchase a second type of insulation product - elastomeric foam insulation - exclusively from Armacell and coercing a distributor to terminate the plaintiff.  The opinion is notable in sustaining a monopolization claim against a manufacturer based largely on an alleged exclusive dealing/tying arrangement with a single regional distributor.      

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2017 17:42:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eastern-District-Of-North-Carolina-Finds-Plaintif</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>United States District Court For The Western District Of Texas Grants Motion To Dismiss Antitrust Claims Brought By Physician Against Texas Medical Board
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/United-States-District-Court-For-The-Western-Dist</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On October 20, 2017, Judge Sam Sparks of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted a motion to dismiss antitrust claims filed against the Texas Medical Board (&quot;TMB&quot;) and certain of its individual members.  Allibone v. Texas Medical Board, et al., No. A-17-CA-00064-SS (W.D. Tex. Oct. 20, 2017).  Judge Sparks&apos;s opinion provides a clear articulation of how the doctrines of sovereign immunity and the state action defense interact in antitrust cases in which state regulatory boards that include the plaintiff&apos;s competitors are involved. 

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Oct 2017 17:41:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/United-States-District-Court-For-The-Western-Dist</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>District Of Massachusetts Certifies Direct And Indirect Purchaser Classes In Alleged Pay-For-Delay Action Relating To Solodyn
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/District-Of-Massachusetts-Certifies-Direct-And-In</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On October 16, 2017, Judge Denise J. Casper of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted class certification to two classes of purchasers allegedly injured by a pay-for-delay scheme relating to prescription drug Solodyn:  a Direct Purchaser Plaintiff class (&quot;DPPs&quot;) and an End-Payor Plaintiff class (&quot;EPPs&quot;).  In Re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litig., No. 14-md-02503 (D. Mass. Oct. 16, 2017).  In certifying the DPP class, the Court rejected the argument that affiliated corporate entities should be consolidated in evaluating the numerosity requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a).  In certifying both classes, the Court accepted the plaintiffs&apos; experts&apos; proffered methodologies to establish common or class-wide impact as adequate for Rule 23 purposes over a variety of defense challenges.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Oct 2017 20:01:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/District-Of-Massachusetts-Certifies-Direct-And-In</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Eastern District Of Pennsylvania Holds That Monopoly Power And Anti-Competitive Conduct By One Subsidiary Cannot Be Imputed To Another Subsidiary Of The Same Parent  
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eastern-District-Of-Pennsylvania-Holds-That-Monop</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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. (&quot;RBH&quot;) premised on an alleged &quot;product hopping&quot; 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]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Oct 2017 20:01:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Eastern-District-Of-Pennsylvania-Holds-That-Monop</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>United States Court Of Appeals For The Third Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment For Defendant Based On Plaintiff&apos;s Failure To Show &quot;Plus Factors&quot; That Made Finding Of Conspiracy More Likely Than Not In Oligopolistic Market For The Sale Of Titanium Dioxide
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/United-States-Court-Of-Appeals-For-The-Third-Circuit-Affirms-Summary-Judgement</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On October 2, 2017, a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit released a ruling affirming the decision by U.S. District Judge Richard G. Andrews of the District of Delaware to grant summary judgment to the defendant E. I. Du Pont De Nemours &amp; Co. on a Sherman Act, Section One claim alleging price fixing in the sale of titanium dioxide on the grounds that the plaintiff had not shown sufficient evidence of an &quot;actual agreement to fix prices.&quot; Valspar Corp. v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co., No. 16-1345 (3d Cir. Sept. 14, 2017).  Writing for the majority, Judge Hardiman rejected much of the plaintiffs&apos; proffered evidence of conspiracy because it established no more than conscious parallelism and interdependent conduct in an oligopolistic market, and was therefore insufficient to prove the essential element of an agreement as required by Section One.  Also lacking, the Court found, was evidence of a &quot;traditional conspiracy,&quot; i.e., &quot;proof that the defendants got together and exchanged assurances of common action or otherwise adopted a common plan even though no meetings, conversation, or exchanged documents are shown.&quot; Id. at 11-12.  This case illustrates the Third Circuit&apos;s continuing practice of requiring a searching analysis of both the particular evidence and the market context in evaluating ambiguous evidence of conspiracy in Sherman Act cases, and reinforces the importance of carefully examining the relevant Circuit law in making forum choices.   

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Oct 2017 20:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/United-States-Court-Of-Appeals-For-The-Third-Circuit-Affirms-Summary-Judgement</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>United States District Court For The Southern District Of Iowa Grants Motion To Dismiss Antitrust Claims Against PepsiCo Based On Alleged &quot;Price Squeeze&quot;
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/United-States-District-Court-For-The-Southern-District-Of_Iowa-Grants_Motion</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
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&apos;s proffered &quot;price squeeze&quot; 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 &quot;in perpetuity&quot; exclusive arrangement at issue here.     

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Sep 2017 20:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/United-States-District-Court-For-The-Southern-District-Of_Iowa-Grants_Motion</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>9th Circuit Upholds Grant Of Summary Judgment In Favor Of UPS And FedEx In Antitrust Suit Brought By Third-Party Shipping Rate Consultant
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-Upholds-Grant-Of-Summary-Judgement</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On August 21, 2017, in an unpublished, split panel decision, the Ninth Circuit affirmed U.S. District Judge Jesus G. Bernal&apos;s decision granting summary judgment in favor of UPS and FedEx on AFMS LLC&apos;s antitrust suit under &amp;sect; 1 of the Sherman Act.  AFMS, a firm that offered rate negotiation and consulting services for package shippers, alleged that UPS and FedEx conspired to boycott third-party consultants such as AFMS who negotiated rates for their customers, including by threatening to discontinue the rate discounts for any shippers who continued to use intermediaries.  After providing AFMS with three opportunities to amend its complaint, the U.S. District Court finally dismissed the claims with prejudice in April 2015 because AFMS had not properly defined a market impacted by the alleged agreement.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Aug 2017 20:10:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-Upholds-Grant-Of-Summary-Judgement</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Ninth Circuit Holds That Stare Decisis Bars Reconsideration Of &apos;Business Of Baseball&apos; Antitrust Exemption As To Minor League Players
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-Holds-That-Stare-Decisis-Bars-Recon</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
On June 26, 2017, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action brought by professional minor league baseball players (&quot;Players&quot;) against the former commissioner of major league baseball and all thirty major league franchises (collectively &quot;Major League Baseball&quot; or &quot;MLB&quot;).  Miranda v. Selig, No. 15-16938 (9th Cir. 2017).  Players alleged that MLB&apos;s hiring and employment policies violated federal antitrust laws and argued that minor league players did not fall within the well-established antitrust exemption for the business of baseball.  Invoking the judicial principle of stare decisis, the panel held unanimously that the baseball exemption applied to Players&apos; claims and affirmed the lower court&apos;s dismissal.

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Jun 2017 20:08:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Ninth-Circuit-Holds-That-Stare-Decisis-Bars-Recon</guid>
				    </item>
			
					 <item>
					      <title>Southern District Of New York Dismisses Oil Price Manipulation Claims Based On Failure To Adequately Allege Antitrust Injury Linked To Defendants&apos; Alleged Conduct   
 </title>
					      <link>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-Of-New-York-Dismisses-Oil-Price</link>
					      <description><![CDATA[
​On June 8, 2017, Judge Andrew L. Carter of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted defendant energy companies&apos; motion to dismiss claims brought by two putative classes of derivatives traders and landowners, finding that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege that they suffered an antitrust injury linked to defendants&apos; alleged conduct in the relevant markets.  In re: North Sea Brent Crude Oil Futures Litigation, Case No. 1:13-md-02475 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 8, 2017).  Plaintiffs, a putative class of landholding interests in U.S. oil-producing property and a putative class of futures and derivatives traders, alleged that defendants conspired to intentionally manipulate Brent crude oil prices and the prices of Brent crude oil futures and derivatives contracts traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (&quot;NYMEX&quot;) and the Intercontinental Exchange (&quot;ICE Futures Europe&quot;) in violation of the Sherman Act (as well as other federal and state laws).  Brent crude is crude oil pulled from the North Sea region of Europe.  In dismissing the Sherman Act claims, the district court found that plaintiffs had not suffered any antitrust injury, and therefore did not have standing as plaintiffs under Section 4 of the Clayton Act.   

Read more]]></description>
					      
						      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jun 2017 20:07:00 GMT</pubDate>
						    
					      <guid>https://www.lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com/Southern-District-Of-New-York-Dismisses-Oil-Price</guid>
				    </item>
			
		</channel>
	</rss>
