(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment that although Apple and a group of major publishers committed an unlawful antitrust conspiracy there was no antitrust injury that resulted.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Reversing and remanding the final judgment of the United States Court of International Trade case granting summary judgment to the government because the subject modular storage unit imports were improperly classified as mountings and fittings rather than as parts of unit furniture.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's dismissal of an antitrust claim alleging anti-competitive activities engaged in by a labor union and a multi-employer collective bargaining association, holding that nonstatutory exemption, the Noerrr-Pennington doctrine, and Sherman Act immunized defendants' activities.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the Court of International Trade's decision affirming a Department of Commerce ruling in the administrative review of an earlier anti-dumping order, the court held that no error occurred in the determination that a Chinese saw blade manufacturer was seeking to sell their products at less than fair market value in the United States.

(United States Second Circuit) - Vacating the district court's determination that a carpenters union was entitled to summary judgment as to Sherman Act Antitrust charges, but affirmed summary judgment for them as to unfair labor practices charges in a case where the union used subcontracting to include ironworking in their activities because the union did not qualify for the non-statutory exemption to antitrust liability, but qualified for the construction industry proviso.

(United States First Circuit) - In an antitrust action, alleging that defendant's petitioning of the Puerto Rico Telecommunications Regulatory Board, government officials and tribunals, and commonwealth and federal courts to prevent plaintiff's application to provide internet protocol television service violated the Sherman Act, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is affirmed where the facts of the case don't subject defendant to the sham exception of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine protecting the right to petition the government.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming that, for customs classification purposes, acrylamido tertiary butyl sulfonic acid is not an amide, but is an amide derivative as defined by the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the denial of the North American Soccer League's motion for preliminary injunction seeking Division II designation pending the resolution of its antitrust case against the United States Soccer Federation because they had failed to demonstrate a clear likelihood of success on the merits of their claim.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirming a district court dismissal of a case brought by numerous taxi associations seeking to prevent Uber from taking their business because Uber's conduct didn't arise to an antitrust violation, attempted monopoly, or other unfair business activity, even if it is killing the old taxicab businesses.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming a US Court of International Trade final decision denying a motion for summary judgment to a company and granting a government cross motion for summary judgment because the court agreed with the Customs and Border Patrol's classification of the plaintiff's subject imports finding that the articles at issue, decorative plates and mugs, weren't eligible for duty free treatment.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirming the grant of summary judgment to a group of table saw manufacturers sued under antitrust laws because the acts upon which the complaint was based occurred prior to 2002, the claims expired in 2006, and the suit was not filed until 2014, refusing to apply the equitable doctrine of fraudulent concealment because the plaintiff was found to have had notice, at latest, by 2003.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Vacating a decision by the US Court of International Trade affirming a US Department of Commerce determination that certain imported oil country tubular goods (OCTG) fabricated as unfinished OCTG in China and finished in other countries were not subject to anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders covering OCTG imported from China because the Trade Court improperly proscribed the use of the substantial transformation analysis to determine the country of origin.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversing a district court dismissal of claims that an ordinance authorizing collective bargaining between driver coordinators like Uber and Lyft violates and is preempted by the Sherman Antitrust Act because the act sanctions price fixing by private cartels of independent contractor drivers but affirming the dismissal of claims that the ordinance was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act and remanding for further proceedings.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Partially affirming, partially reversing, partially vacating, and remanding a case in which the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee appealed a decision of the US Court of International Trade affirming the scope of the US Department of Commerce ruling holding that Whirlpoo's kitchen appliance door handles with end caps don't fall within the scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Defendant appealed from a judgement of the US Court of International Trade in favor of plaintiff. The Court of Appeals held that the Court of International Trade lacked jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs claims and reversed the judgement. The Appeals court concluded that jurisdiction under 28 USC section 1581 may not be invoked until administrative remedies are exhausted.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Appeal from US Court of International Trade (ITC). Plaintiffs sought preliminary injunction to bar enforcement of Presidentially imposed tariff. ITC denied preliminary injunction and appeals court affirmed. The President has authority under Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose tariffs and where a statute authorizes a Presidential determination, courts have no authority to look behind that determination to see if it is support by the record.

(United States Supreme Court) - The US Supreme Court held that American Express (Amex) anti-steering provisions, in its agreement with merchants to prohibit merchants who take Amex cards from discouraging customers from using their cards in order for the merchant to avoid paying Amex a fee, do not violate the Sherman Antitrust Act.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed a criminal conviction for violating antitrust laws where the defendant was convicted of conspiring to suppress and restrain competition by rigging bids. Defendant argued that the matter should be adjudicated under a rule-of-reason analysis. However, because bid rigging is a per-se violation of the Sherman Act, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not err by refusing to allow evidence of the alleged ameliorative effects of his conduct.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part and vacated in part the dismissal of antitrust and state law claims of golf caddies who participated in the PGA Tour, who were required to wear bibs containing advertisements. The court reasoned that the caddies consented to wearing the bibs when they filled out the participation form and that they had not alleged plausible product markets to support antitrust claims. The court, however, vacated the decision to deny leave to amend caddies’ complaint.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reinstated an antitrust claim against a wholly owned natural gas subsidiary that said it had no knowledge of its parent company's alleged price-fixing scheme that had pumped up the price of gas. The subsidiary argued that it could not be held liable for violating Wisconsin antitrust law because it was not involved in anything unlawful that its parent company may have done. Unpersuaded, the Ninth Circuit emphasized that a parent and a wholly owned subsidiary always act as a single enterprise whenever they engage in coordinated activity, and thus reversed the grant of summary judgment to the subsidiary.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed that magazine publishers did not violate antitrust laws by trying to drive a wholesaler out of business. The wholesaler delivered magazines to retail stores and it alleged that when it tried to impose a surcharge on the publishers in 2009, they conspired to boycott and drive the wholesaler out of business. On appeal, the Second Circuit found that the wholesaler had presented insufficient evidence of a boycott scheme to survive summary judgment. The panel also affirmed summary judgment against the publishers' counterclaims.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed that the U.S. Olympic Committee and USA Track and Field did not violate antitrust law by imposing advertising restrictions during the Olympic Trials. A chewing gum company that wished to pay to display its logo on athletes' apparel brought this suit to challenge the advertising restrictions. Rejecting the company's arguments, the Ninth Circuit held that the defendant organizations were entitled to implied antitrust immunity on the basis that their advertising restrictions were integral to performance of their duties under the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a private antitrust action brought by consumers seeking to enjoin the largest U.S. beer producer from acquiring the second largest. The consumers argued in this action brought under section 7 of the Clayton Act that the merger would lessen competition in the U.S. beer market. Concluding that they failed to state a claim, the Ninth Circuit emphasized that the U.S. Department of Justice, as a condition of approving the merger, had required the company being acquired to divest entirely its domestic beer business.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an antitrust lawsuit was barred by the act-of-state doctrine. The plaintiff corporations alleged that a Mexican-government-owned salt production company engaged in an antitrust conspiracy with a Japanese company. Affirming dismissal of the complaint, the Ninth Circuit held that the lawsuit was fundamentally a challenge to Mexico's determination about the exploitation of its own natural resources and thus was barred by the act-of-state doctrine, which precludes adjudication of the sovereign acts of other nations in U.S. courts.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of two putative antitrust class actions alleging that a pharmaceutical company took steps to block the entry of generic versions of its leukemia-treatment drug into the U.S. market. The plaintiffs, including several labor union benefit funds, claimed that the drugmaker engaged in anticompetitive conduct by bringing sham infringement lawsuits against manufacturers trying to enter the market with generic versions of that drug. Dismissing the complaints, the district court held that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged their claims, and the First Circuit affirmed.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a liquor distributor's claim under the RICO statute against other liquor distributors. The New York metropolitan area's exclusive distributor for many leading brands of liquor brought this suit alleging that two of Maryland's largest liquor distributors were smuggling liquor into New York, cutting into its sales. The district court dismissed the case because the smuggling operation, as alleged, did not directly cause the plaintiff to lose sales, and therefore the plaintiff did not adequately allege proximate cause under RICO. Agreeing, the Second Circuit affirmed.

(United States Third Circuit) - Reinstated a medical device seller's claim that certain Blue Cross Blue Shield health insurance companies violated antitrust law by unreasonably restraining trade in the national market for outpatient cardiac monitors. The seller of a cardiac monitoring device contended that it was shut out of the market because the defendants conspired to deny insurance coverage for its product to shield themselves from patient demand for it. Holding that the seller stated a claim under section 1 of the Sherman Act, the Third Circuit reversed dismissal of the complaint and remanded for further proceedings.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the People's claim alleging that the owner of a tobacco smoke shop on Indian lands was liable under California's Unfair Competition Law for violating various laws applicable to cigarette sales and marketing. Reverse an order granting summary adjudication to the People on this claim.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - In a case involving states' power to regulate liquor sales, held that the plaintiffs stated a claim that Illinois unlawfully refused to license out-of-state retailers to ship liquor to consumers in the state, in violation of the Commerce Clause and Privileges and Immunities Clause. Reversed a dismissal and remanded.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that the Federal Trade Commission Act could support an order compelling an online payday lender to pay more than $1 billion in monetary relief for unfair business practices. Two of the judges on the Ninth Circuit panel filed a concurring opinion to suggest that the court should rehear the case en banc to reconsider relevant circuit precedent.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of antitrust claims brought against two manufacturers of a material called containerboard that is used to make boxes. Held that there was not enough evidence of a conspiracy to proceed to trial on the purchasers' claims under the Sherman Act that the companies conspired to increase prices and reduce output.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a healthcare antitrust case, affirmed a protective order that said certain confidential business documents belonging to a non-party health insurer should be unsealed (but redacted) if and when they are filed on the public docket. The non-party sought stronger confidentiality protections.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Revived a RICO lawsuit brought by importers of garlic who alleged that rival importers had conspired to harm their businesses. Reversed a dismissal in relevant part and remanded.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - In a dispute between two companies in the agriculture-related biotechnology field, affirmed in part and reversed in part a judgment after a jury trial. The case involved antitrust claims, patent infringement claims and an alleged breach of a confidentiality agreement.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - The Fifth Circuit transferred a case back to the Federal Circuit, from which it had been transferred. The two circuits disagreed about which one was the proper forum for this appeal, which involved a company's claim that a competitor violated antitrust law by obtaining a patent through fraud.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that Connecticut law governing liquor pricing is not preempted by federal antitrust law. Affirmed the dismissal of a liquor retailer's complaint, which challenged certain provisions of Connecticut's Liquor Control Act and related regulations.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion, in a lawsuit accusing certain organizations and individuals of attempting to restrain trade and monopolize a city's medical marijuana market.

(United States DC Circuit) - Held that the federal government could not block a proposed merger between AT&T and Time Warner. The government had sued to enjoin the vertical merger on the basis that it would have anticompetitive effects. However, the D.C. Circuit agreed with the district court's conclusion that the government's evidence was insufficient, and affirmed the denial of a permanent injunction.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that the Louisiana Real Estate Appraisers Board's petition for review was premature in a case where the Federal Trade Commission had charged it with adopting an unlawful policy that restrained trade. Dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a manufacturer of medical syringes that falsely advertised its products did not have to disgorge its profits. That remedy would not be equitable under the circumstances here. Affirmed a post-trial ruling, in this lawsuit brought by a competing syringe manufacturer that also involved antitrust claims.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a company offering bar exam review courses did not plausibly plead that a competitor conspired with certain law schools to enable it to obtain a monopoly. Affirmed the dismissal of this antitrust lawsuit.

(United States Second Circuit) - Plaintiff brought suit against three dental supply distributors alleging that they conspired to violate antitrust laws. The trial court dismissed plaintiff's antitrust claims for lack of standing and tort claims for failure to state a claim. Second circuit affirmed the dismissal of the antitrust claims, but vacated the judgment for the tort claims. The case was remanded back to the district court for further proceedings.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld sanctions that the Department of Motor Vehicles imposed on a car dealer. The dealer should have returned buyers' down payments when it repossessed the cars after the buyers failed to obtain financing.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that consumers could proceed with an antitrust lawsuit alleging that Apple Inc. used monopolistic power to overcharge for iPhone apps. Apple contended that the lawsuit was barred because the consumers were not "direct purchasers" within the meaning of the Illinois Brick case. However, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Apple's argument in a 5-4 decision, on review of a dismissal ruling. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the majority opinion, joined by the four liberal justices.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - District court's granting of summary judgment and bench verdict for Defendant affirmed. Sherman Act claim fails where the only current feasible way to comply with Chicagoland area city commercial fire safety ordinances was to use an exclusive provider. Under Fisher v. City of Berkeley, government restraints on trade imposed unilaterally do not form the basis of a Section 1 or Section 2 claim.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed. Finding the plaintiffs plausibly alleged interlocking agreements injured competition, the panel reversed the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim in an antitrust action brought by a class of subscribers to DirecTV’s NFL Sunday Ticket.

(United States Second Circuit) - Vacated & remanded. Finding the circumstances of these plaintiffs to be materially different from those in In re Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litig., the panel held that the district court erred in concluding the plaintiffs failed to establish antitrust standing.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. The application of the Commodity Exchange Act to alleged misconduct in trading of crude oil extracted from Europe’s North Sea is impermissibly extraterritorial.

This is the final part of a three-part series on litigation interest and risk assessment (LIRA) and early dispute resolution procedures.  The first part explains how lawyers can use LIRA procedures to help clients make better decisions about litigation and negotiation.  The second part describes some early dispute resolution procedures, which can benefit from good … Continue reading Dispute Prevention and Early Dispute Resolution Framework →

From old friend and colleague Ran Kuttner, here is a conference in Israel on shared society (scheduled for April 22nd) that most of us would not get the chance to attend but now can since it will be virtual (and the morning is in English)–the link to registration is here! https://www.facebook.com/events/585091012107455/