Episode 341 -- DOJ Charges Visa with Monopolization and Exclusionary Conduct in the Debit Card Market
Nota Bene Episode 98: The U.S. Supreme Court’s Mark on U.S. Antitrust Law for 2020 with Thomas Dillickrath and Bevin Newman
Nota Bene Episode 46: America’s Existential Antitrust Crisis with Thomas Dillickrath
Instapundit: America's IP Laws Need to be "Pruned Back"
$300 Million Dairy Settlement Will Bring Reform, Lawyer Says
On March 11, 2025, Judge Christopher R. Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted a shipping company’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing an antitrust case brought by the only other company...more
On December 4, 2024, the Ninth Circuit upheld the District Court’s denial of the American Booksellers Association’s motion to intervene in an antitrust suit brought against Amazon.com by the FTC and 19 states. The Ninth...more
On January 21, 2025, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the United States District Court for the District of Colorado’s dismissal of the Association of Surgical Assistants’ (ASA) challenge to the National Board of...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 August 11, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decisively reversed the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC or Commission) controversial district court win challenging Qualcomm’s licensing practices. In...more
In a reversal that came as no surprise to many observers, on Tuesday, August 11, 2020, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern...more
On Tuesday, August 11, 2020, the Ninth Circuit reversed and vacated Judge Lucy Koh’s controversial, post-bench trial decision in FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., 411 F. Supp. 3d 658 (N.D. Cal. 2019), regarding whether Qualcomm violated...more
Ninth Circuit Overturns District Court Judge Lucy Koh's Decision That Qualcomm's Licensing and Chip Sales Practices Are Antitrust Violations - The Federal Trade Commission has a history of taking positions and aggressively...more
Curver Luxembourg, SARL v. Home Expressions Inc., Appeal No. 2018-2214 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 12, 2019) In a significant case in the field of design patents, the Federal Circuit clarified the scope of design patent infringement...more
INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORP. Before Prost, Bryson, and Reyna. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Summary: The Federal Circuit applied collateral...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
On May 21, 2019, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California found that Qualcomm violated the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act, in an antitrust decision significant to licensing...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
The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a lower court decision to dismiss 12 Orange County cities from federal antitrust lawsuits alleging the municipalities monopolized ambulance services in their boundaries....more