Latest Publications

Share:

Attempt to Monopolize Claim Fails Where Plaintiff Cannot Establish Approach to Monopoly Power in Properly Defined Relevant Market

Practitioners interested in the real world application of an attempt to monopolize claim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, will find Savory Pie Guy a “good read” for the New Year. Savory Pie Guy, LLC v. Comtec Industries,...more

Refusal to Sell Bulk-Size Packs, Without More, Is Not Price Discrimination – “Size is Not a Service”

Woodman’s Food Market, Inc. v. Clorox Co., No. 15-3001 (7th Cir. August 12, 2016). Clorox Sales Company and Clorox Company produce a range of consumer goods. Clorox sold goods to Plaintiff Woodman’s Food Market, a...more

Cross Subsidization For Purpose Of Enhanced Grocery Sales Through Alleged Below Cost Gasoline Discounts Found Not To Violate...

Injury to competing retail fuel stations is non-actionable where market conditions demonstrate that an “incipient antitrust violation” is not imminent. Dixon Gas Club LLC v. Safeway Inc., Case No. A139283 (Court of Appeal 1st...more

American Quarter Horse Association Rule Against Registration of Cloned Horses Found Not To Violate Sherman Act

A Matsushita “Quick Look” Analysis Demonstrates that While Plausible, No Evidence Supports An Actionable Conspiracy or Monopoly. Abraham & Veneklasen Joint Venture et al. v. Am. Quarter Horse Ass’n, 776 F.3d 321 (5th Cir....more

Revised “Fred Meyer Guides” Leave Treatment of Key Robinson-Patman Act Provisions Unchanged

While hardly ever enforced in modern times by government enforcement agencies, and rarely the subject of antitrust treble damage actions, Sections 2(d) and (e) of the Robinson Patman Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 13(d) and (e)) have had...more

Allegations That Designer Wedding Dress Line Constitutes A Relevant Product Market Found Implausible

Allegations that a highly specialized designer line of wedding dresses lacks reasonable substitutes fail to support allegations of Sherman Act violations for price fixing and group boycott claims.  House of Brides etc., v....more

Agricultural Cooperative Antitrust Litigation Continues to Mushroom

Pennsylvania District Court certifies five year ruling for interlocutory appeal, that mushroom cooperative is not immune from antitrust claims based upon “advice of counsel” argument. In Re Mushroom Direct Purchaser...more

Allegations that Defendants Provided Product for “Free” State Claims Under California’s UPA and UCL, Notwithstanding that “Cost”...

Bebe Au Lait, LLC v. Mothers Lounge, LLC and Udder Covers, LLC, Case No. 5:13-CV-03035-EJD (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2014) - Plaintiff Bebe Au Lait sells nursing covers. It was the first company to make and sell, pursuant...more

Of Characterization and Common Sense: Court Holds That Erroneous Interpretation of Allegations of Complaint Doom Counterclaim to...

In In Re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-Md.-02002-GP (E.D. Pa., June 10, 2014), the plaintiffs alleged that they purchased eggs from the defendant egg producing cooperatives, and that the plaintiffs had...more

Beyond Truth, and Toward Repose: Price Increases Following “Merger to Monopoly” Do Not Rekindle Statute of Limitations

Z Technologies Corp. v. Lubrizol Corp., No. 2:12-cv-12206 (6th Cir., May 23, 2014). In February, 2007, Lubrizol Corporation made a “merger to monopoly” acquisition of the assets of a competitor. The acquisition...more

FTC v. Actavis on Remand: A New Chapter

District Court refuses to grant renewed motion to dismiss based on Noerr-Pennington doctrine. In re AndroGel Antitrust Litigation (No. II), MDL No. 2084 (re Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., No. 1:09-CV-955-TWT)...more

De Facto Exclusive Dealing: What a Difference a Day Makes

In Competition Law360, September 4, 2013, we reported on the dismissal of a complaint which alleged, inter alia, exclusive-dealing claims in a market described as the management and distribution of “photographs in rich media...more

Failure to Adequately Allege Lack of Supply Cross-Elasticity Dooms Attempted Monopolization Action to "Quick Look" Dismissal

GULF STATES REORGANIZATION GROUP, INC. V. NUCOR CORP. (11th Cir. July 15, 2013) No. 11-14983. - In 1999, Gulf States Steel, Inc., a participant in a market described as “black hot rolled coil steel” filed a petition...more

Antitrust Exclusive Dealing Claims Given "Short-Shrift" in Dismissal. How Long Is Short? An Analysis in Search of Context

The Federal District Court for the Central District of California, sitting in Santa Ana, recently dismissed antitrust claims in an action between competitors in a market described as the management and distribution of...more

Claims of Providing Truthful Marketing Information to Airports Issuing Bids for Duty Free Shops Fails to Allege Actionable...

Conclusary allegations of parallel business conduct which are in the economic self-interest of the actor do not state an actionable antitrust claim. Duty Free Americas, Inc. v. The Estée Lauder Companies, Inc., Case O:...more

15 Results
/
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence,
in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.