In In re: Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7516 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2014) (Gonzalez Rogers, J.), the Northern District of California largely rejected a motion to dismiss an antitrust price-fixing complaint, but held that the plaintiffs had not adequately pled that they fell within a recognized exception to the Illinois Brick rule against indirect purchaser suits.
Lithium ion battery by Varta (Museum Autovision Altlußheim, Germany) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Under Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), indirect purchasers lack standing to sue under the federal antitrust laws. There are several exceptions to the Illinois Brick rule, including the so-called Royal Printing exception (see Royal Printing Co. v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 621 F.2d 323 (9th Cir. 1980)). Under Royal Printing, indirect purchasers may sue when, inter alia, a conspiring seller owners or controls the direct purchaser.
In Lithium Ion Batteries, purchasers purchased batteries (not lithium ion battery cells) from “packers,” not from the defendant manufacturers. The court held that the complaint did not adequately allege that the defendants controlled the packers, and that influence over their business was insufficient.
Significantly, the court also rejected defendants’ argument that Royal Printing bars standing for an indirect purchaser who has purchased a price-fixed component (here, battery cells) as part of a finished product (here, batteries) from an entity owned or controlled by a conspirator. Otherwise, “[p]rice-fixers of components of complex goods . . . would be immunized.” In so holding, the court followed two other recent cases from the Northern District of California. The court gave plaintiffs an opportunity to replead to establish that they satisfy the Royal Printing exception.