Nota Bene Episode 98: The U.S. Supreme Court’s Mark on U.S. Antitrust Law for 2020 with Thomas Dillickrath and Bevin Newman
Apple Loses First 'Big' Case to MobileMedia, Lawyer Says
Hot Companies in Digital Health
Considering numerous claim construction, infringement and damages issues related to patents allegedly covering Apple’s iPhones 5 and 6 series technology, a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined...more
The United States Supreme Court infrequently hears antitrust cases but when it decides to hear a case, the Court has the power to shape the framework of American antitrust laws. In this episode, we’re examining the...more
On November 13, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Northern District of California’s denial of class certification in an action against Apple, Inc., holding that the plaintiffs’ expert’s wait-and-see approach to calculating the...more
Report on Supply Chain Compliance, Volume 2, no. 19 (October 10, 2019) - A case involving the “Safari Workaround”[1] has made its way through the U.K. courts over the past 18 months and has recently been allowed to proceed....more
On May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision holding that iPhone owners who purchased applications through Apple’s App Store were “direct purchasers” who could sue Apple for monopolization....more
In May 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision in Apple v. Pepper, one of the Court's most significant antitrust rulings of the last several years. In a majority opinion authored by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court...more
In a 5–4 decision, in Apple, Inc. v. Pepper, the U.S. Supreme Court (the “Court”) followed the its 1977 precedent in Illinois Brick v. Illinois, which limits the assertion of antitrust damage claims to the first purchaser...more
On May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court issued its most recent decision relating to antitrust class action litigation. The case, Apple Inc. v. Pepper, No. 17-204, could represent a significant shift in antitrust class action...more
In a 5-4 split decision, the U.S. Supreme Court appears to have reworked a longstanding precedent that has been a foundation of antitrust litigation for more than 40 years—the “direct purchaser” rule of Illinois Brick, which...more
In a recent decision decided on May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court allowed an antitrust suit to move forward against Apple. Consumers brought suit based on Apple’s operation of its App Store – which serves as the exclusive...more
In a 5-4 ruling issued on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court in Apple Inc. v. Pepper determined that iPhone users may proceed with their claims against Apple over its alleged anticompetitive app store practices. The decision...more
• The U.S. Supreme Court split 5-4 on how to apply Illinois Brick’s prohibition on federal indirect purchaser lawsuits to a case where plaintiff app purchasers bought apps from the Apple App Store, paying a price set by the...more
The United States Supreme Court decided this week that purchasers of apps through the Apple App Store have standing under federal antitrust law to bring a class-action lawsuit against the tech giant....more
Wondering if you’re a direct purchaser from a monopoly? There’s a Supreme Court ruling for that. Our Antitrust Team downloads the Court’s Apple v. Pepper decision and considers its conclusions and implications....more
In APPLE INC. v. PEPPER ET AL., case number 17-204, the United States Supreme Court considered a case alleging Apple has monopolized the retail market for the sale of apps and has unlawfully used its monopolistic power to...more
On May 13, 2019, in a 5-4 decision in Apple Inc. v. Pepper, the U.S. Supreme Court held that consumers of iPhone apps are direct purchasers of Apple and therefore have standing to sue the company for alleged monopolization of...more
On May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Apple Inc. v. Pepper, No. 17-204, holding that iPhone owners who purchase apps from Apple’s App Store are “direct purchasers” from Apple and may sue Apple for alleged monopolization...more
Deciding an issue of first impression, the California Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate confirming that there is only one standard for the admissibility of expert opinion in California, and that standard applies when...more
As mentioned in a prior blog post, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) can conduct searches of individuals departing the United States, a fact that many are not aware of. In fact, the rule that failure to declare...more
In a precedential ruling, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals this week upheld a lower court’s ruling holding a criminal defendant in contempt for refusing to decrypt two external hard drives that were seized during a child...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently addressed again when plaintiffs have standing to pursue federal antitrust claims under the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431...more
In another twist of fortunes in the long-running smartphone patent war between Apple and Samsung, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has once again overturned Apple’s patent infringement jury verdict – this...more
Federal Circuit Revives Possibility of Permanent Injunction in Apple-Samsung Patent Dispute - In Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Appeal No. 2014-1802, the Federal Circuit reversed for abuse of discretion the...more
Decision Date: May 18, 2015 - Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - Patents: D593,087; D604,305; D618,677 - Holding: Judgment of trade dress dilution REVERSED; judgment of patent validity and...more