News & Analysis as of

Monopolization Reversal

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

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Ninth Circuit Strikes Down Sweeping Injunction Against Qualcomm and Reins In Expansive Interpretation of Sherman Act

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

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Ninth Circuit Reverses FTC Win in FTC v. Qualcomm, Finding No Antitrust Violations from Qualcomm’s Licensing of its...

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

Haug Partners LLP

Ninth Circuit Reverses Northern District of California Decision in FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 19-16122

Haug Partners LLP on

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

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Ins. (9th Cir. 2020)

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

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

Fox Rothschild LLP

App Store Purchasers Entitled To Bite At The Antitrust Apple, Says Supreme Court

Fox Rothschild LLP on

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

Alston & Bird

U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies the Direct-Purchaser Rule, Allows App Purchasers to Proceed Against Apple

Alston & Bird on

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

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

Smart & Biggar

Ontario Court of Appeal allows Sanofi and Schering to plead that Federal Court ramipril patent invalidity decision was flawed due...

Smart & Biggar on

In an action by Apotex for compensation from Sanofi and Schering under the Ontario Statute of Monopolies, U.K. Statute of Monopolies and the Trade-marks Act, the Ontario Court of Appeal has overturned a motion judge’s...more

Akerman LLP - Health Law Rx

Reversal of Fortune: Rhode Island Court Withdraws “Tentative” Decision to Grant Summary Judgment to Health Insurer in Health...

In what was a surprise result, on April 23, Judge William Smith (Chief Judge of the District of Rhode Island) reversed the “tentative” decision he had announced last November, in Stewart Health v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of...more

Mintz

Sixth Circuit Finds Possibility of Conspiracy Among Hospital Network Members

Mintz on

The Sixth Circuit on Tuesday voted 2 to 1 to reverse a district court’s grant of summary judgment under which a defendant hospital network had been found to be a single entity incapable of conspiring with itself in an...more

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

"US Supreme Court Narrows State-Action Doctrine in Hospital Merger Challenged by FTC"

In a unanimous decision issued on February 19, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the state-action doctrine did not immunize Phoebe Putney Health System’s acquisition of Palmyra Park Hospital in Albany, Georgia.1 The...more

21 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