A class action complaint alleged that the Staples/HP deal in which Staples agreed to stop selling its own ink for HP printers and instead to promote the HP band of ink constituted a per se illegal horizontal agreement not to compete. Apparently intending to reach the appellate level quickly, the plaintiffs alleged only a per […]
Category Archives: US Federal Courts
Court Dismisses IPO Claim Against MasterCard in Interchange Fee Case
December 1, 2008 – 1:17 pm
Judge Gleason, the Southern District of NY judge overseeing the multi-district Visa/MasterCard antitrust litigation disagreed with his magistrate and dismissed a claim by the merchant plaintiffs that MasterCard’s IPO unlawfully lessened competition under Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The complaint alleged that the IPO was a sham to create the appearance that MasterCard was […]
Attempt to Monopolize Suit Filed by Hawaiian
November 23, 2008 – 7:55 pm
Mokulele Air sued Mesa Airlines in Arizona Federal District Court alleging that Mesa has taken steps to monopolize the market for inter-island air travel in Hawaii. The complaint alleges predatory pricing, misuse of confidential information, and other improper tactics designed to drive Mokulele from the market.
Tying Claim Against Apple Dismissed
November 23, 2008 – 7:41 pm
An antitrust counterclaim alleging that Apple unlawfully tied the use of its operating system to the purchase of it own hardware was dismissed by a Northern District of California court on the ground that the plaintiff, Psystar, had failed to adequately allege the relevant market. Under Twombly, the court held, Psystar allegations were insufficient to […]
Jury Finds No Conspiracy on Universal Service Fees
November 23, 2008 – 7:32 pm
The jury in a Federal District Court case against AT&T found that the telco giant did not conspire with Spring and MCI in the manner in which it passed on the universal service fee to customers. The jury did find in favor of the plaintiffs on a breach of contract claim. Sprint had previously settled […]
Case Against Sham Challenge to Generic Drug Goes to Trial
November 21, 2008 – 11:05 am
Southern District of NY Judge Harold Baer ruled that an antitrust action against Sanofi-Aventis for filing an allegedly baseless citizent petition to block approval of generic versions of rheumatoid-arthritis drug leflunomide. The plaintiff, Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. argues that the petition was filed with the intent to delay approval, and that it had the intended […]
OCR Software Monopolization Claim Dismissed
November 18, 2008 – 11:42 am
In response to a patent infringement suit, Abbyy USA Software House alleged that the dominant provider of OCR software Nuance Communications was attempting to monopolize the OCR software market by entering exclusive agreements with equipment manufacturers and retails and by buying up its competitors patents. The court found an insufficient factual basis for allegations of […]
Court Refuses to Dismiss Price Fixing as Government Compelled
November 18, 2008 – 11:35 am
An Eastern District of New York district judge recently rejected a motion to dismiss a multi-district Section 1 case alleging price fixing among Chinese producers of vitiman C. The defendants argued, with support from an amicus brief filed by the Chinese government, that the cartel was compelled by government policy and thus government action beyond […]
G-Fee Conspiracy Case to Go Forward Against Fanny & Freddy
November 7, 2008 – 2:27 pm
A group of home mortgage holders prevailed on a portion of their complaint against Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, alleging that the two mortgage guarantee corporations conspired to increase guarantee fees charged to mortgage lenders. Although the court dismissed the claims for injunctive relief, it allowed the damages claim to continue even though the plaintiffs […]
Refusal to Include Patent in Standard Not a Restraint of Trade
October 28, 2008 – 2:57 pm
The Fifth Circuit has held that a standard setting consortium’s decision not to include Golden Bridge Techonologies patent in a cell phone related standard, by itself, cannot constitute an unreasonable restraint on trade. By its very nature, the court held, a standard setting organization must select some patents and reject others. Absent evidence of anticompetitive […]