News & Analysis as of

Monopolization Dismissals

WilmerHale

The Interplay: Key Decisions at the Intersection of Antitrust & Life Sciences - May 2024

WilmerHale on

Second Circuit Affirms “Pay for Delay” Dismissal:  On May 13, 2024, the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of antitrust claims brought by wholesalers, retailers, and employee benefit funds that alleged they overpaid for the...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Nota Bene Episode 98: The U.S. Supreme Court’s Mark on U.S. Antitrust Law for 2020 with Thomas Dillickrath and Bevin Newman

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

McDermott Will & Emery

Mississippi Supreme Court Rejects ‘Passage of Title’ DTC Theory

Last week, the Supreme Court of Mississippi handed down an opinion in Fitch v. Wine Express Inc., No. 2018-SA-01259-SCT. A state court decision on the rather dry subject of personal jurisdiction often merits little comment,...more

Jones Day

Insights from the Supreme Court’s Apple v. Pepper Antitrust Decision

Jones Day on

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

K&L Gates LLP

Follow The Money: The Supreme Court Defines the “First Purchaser” to Whom Illinois Brick Limits Antitrust Damage Claims as a...

K&L Gates LLP on

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

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Future of Antitrust Class Actions Foreshadowed in Apple Inc. v. Pepper

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

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

SCOTUS Blows Down Apple’s House Made of Illinois Brick

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

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Evolving Antitrust Principles in the Age of Big Tech: Supreme Court Allows Antitrust Suit to Move Forward Against Apple

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

Carlton Fields

Supreme Court Upholds Ninth Circuit Decision: Antitrust Action Against Apple May Proceed

Carlton Fields on

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

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Apple Inc. v. Pepper: The Supreme Court Chips Away at Illinois Brick, Allowing iPhone Users to Sue Apple for Monopolizing iPhone...

• 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

Weintraub Tobin

U.S. Supreme Court Allows App Store Anti-Trust Class Action To Proceed Against Apple

Weintraub Tobin on

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

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Supreme Court Holds Antitrust Claims of iPhone App Consumers Are Not Barred by Illinois Brick

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

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides Apple Inc. v. Pepper

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

Mintz

Philadelphia Cabbies Lose Appeal in Monopoly Case Against Uber

Mintz on

In broad language, a Third Circuit panel affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a monopoly suit against Uber Technologies Inc. (“Uber”). Philadelphia Taxi Association Inc. v. Uber Technologies Inc., Case No. 17-1871 (3rd...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Antitrust Claims Against Telescope Manufacturer Ningbo Sunny Dismissed and Shot into Space

On September 28, 2017, Judge Edward Davila dismissed an antitrust complaint filed by Optronic Technologies, Inc. (dba Orion) against Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co., Ltd., Sunny Optics, Inc. and Meade Instruments Corp. The case...more

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

"Southern District Decision Highlights Challenges for Private Litigants Pursuing Manipulation Claims Under the CEA"

The U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York recently dismissed a class action lawsuit alleging that Total, S.A., Total Gas & Power North America, Inc., and Total Gas & Power Limited (collectively, “Total”)...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Accused Infringer Rides Antitrust Roller Coaster - Magnetar Technologies Corp. v. Intamin Ltd.

McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing antitrust issues in connection with a dismissed patent infringement lawsuit, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a grant of summary judgment dismissing antitrust and malicious prosecution...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

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

18 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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide