Antitrust Law Blog : Antitrust Lawyer & Attorney : Sheppard Mullin Law Firm : Antitrust Law Blog

By Don T. Hibner, Jr.

On December 2, 2011, the district court denied a motion to dismiss antitrust conspiracy claims against potato grower cooperatives in several states. In re Fresh and Process Potatoes Antitrust Litigation, United States District Court for the District of Idaho, Case No. 4:10-MD-2186-BLW. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant cooperatives agreed among themselves, through their cooperative structure, to restrict the output of their members by limiting potato planting acreages, paying farmers to destroy existing stocks, and refraining from bringing additional potatoes to market. The alleged purpose of the output-restricting conspiracy was to augment demand among direct purchasers of potatoes, thus driving up prices. The defendant cooperatives moved to dismiss on the ground that the allegations of antitrust conspiracy were immune, pursuant to the federal Capper-Volstead Act of 1922, 7 U.S.C. § 291-292.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Thomas D. Nevins

In “the latest installment in a contentious litigation”, defendant Research In Motion recently obtained an order granting its motion to dismiss plaintiff Eatoni's claims that RIM violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act and equivalent portions of New York’s Donnelly Act. Eatoni Ergonomics, Inc. v. Research In Motion Corp., No. 08-Civ. 10079 (WHP) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2011), Memorandum and Order, p. 1 (Pauley, J.).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Thomas D. Nevins

Plaintiff Netflix subscribers alleged that Netflix and Wal-Mart violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by entering into to a horizontal market allocation agreement. In re: Online DVD Rental Antitrust Litigation, No. M 09-2029 PJH, Order Granting Motion For Summary Judgment (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2011). Netflix and Walmart entered into a Promotion Agreement under which Netflix would rent but not sell DVDs online, and Walmart would sell but not rent DVDs online. Walmart would promote DVD rentals by Netflix, and Netflix would promote the sale of DVDs by Walmart.
Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission recently issued their final "Statement of Antitrust Enforcement Policy Regarding Accountable Care Organizations Participating in the Medicare Shared Savings Program" pursuant to the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The final statement was issued in conjunction with the Department of Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' final regulations implementing the shared savings program as part of a coordinated interagency effort to facilitate health care provider participation in the shared savings program, so as to achieve the cost savings and improvement in quality of care Congress intended. Both the final statement and CMS' final regulations aim to further encourage and incentivize formation of Accountable Care Organizations and participation in the shared savings program. As such, the final statement includes significant, material changes from the proposed statement of antitrust enforcement policy with respect to ACOs issued earlier this year. (See the April 15 article on the proposed statement.)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Creation of duopolistic interdependence by misapplication of a state statute mandating preferential treatment for local producers is an implausible "slippery slope." Erie County v. Morton Salt, Inc., N.D. Ohio, No. 3:11-cv-00364-JGC, 9/19/11.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The District of Delaware recently denied a motion to dismiss an antitrust counterclaim in a patent infringement action in the wake of defendant Mylan, Inc. ("Mylan") having filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application ("ANDA") with the Federal Drug Administration ("FDA"). Shionogi Pharma, Inc. v. Mylan, Inc., United States District Court, District of Delaware, Civil Action No. 10-1077, August 31, 2011. The decision raises a host of interesting and provocative issues relating to the "sham" exception for petitioning activity immunity under the Noerr doctrine. See Eastern R.R. Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, 365 U.S. 127 (1961) ("Noerr") and Professional Real Estate Investors v. Columbia Pictures Industries, 508 U.S. 49 (1993) ("PRE"). In essence, the court held that plaintiff and counter-defendant Shionogi Pharma, Inc. ("Shionogi") could not maintain that Mylan lacked standing to prosecute an antitrust counterclaim by virtue of Shionogi's filing of the underlying patent infringement action, which automatically triggered an ANDA automatic 30-month stay of FDA approval of Mylan's submission.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On July 27, 2011, China’s State Administration for Industry and Commerce (“SAIC”) posted on its website information on the first anti-monopoly case regarding abuse of administrative power to eliminate or restrict competition.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Plaintiff SPX Corporation ("SPX") brought a patent infringement action against Master Cool U.S.A. ("Master Cool"). Master Cool answered and counterclaimed. In its counterclaim, it alleged that SPX had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by its utilization of short term exclusive dealing incentive contracts with distributors, which allegedly foreclosed competitive opportunities to Master Cool, SPX's direct competitor. Both SPX and Master Cool sell automotive refrigerant recycling and recovery machines ("ARRR equipment") through distributors. The distributors market the ARRR machines and related services to consumers through catalogs. Through a series of one year distributor contracts with dealers, SPX provided advertising funds that were exclusive to certain SPX products and that were unavailable should a distributor advertise competing products.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A revenue-sharing agreement among grocery stores, designed to help the stores weather targeted strikes by employees during labor strife, is not shielded from antitrust scrutiny by virtue of the non-statutory labor exemption, but neither is it so obviously anticompetitive to merit condemnation under a "quick-look" analysis, an en banc panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court recently held. California ex rel. Harris v. Safeway, Inc., No. 08-55671 (9th Cir. July 12, 2011).
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On July 27, 2011, the US and China signed an antitrust memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) in an effort to promote communication and cooperation among the antitrust agencies of the two countries. The MOU was signed by the US Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice, together with China’s Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”), National Development and Reform Commission (“NDRC”), and State Administration for Industry and Commerce (“SAIC”).
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On June 20, 2011, the United States Supreme Court decided Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, No. 10-277, holding that 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees around the nation could not bring discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against Wal-Mart on a classwide basis, because the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) were not satisfied. The decision is yet another major decision from the Court this term relating to class actions. (See, e.g., AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, No. 09-893 (U.S. Apr. 27, 2011)). The Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart clarifies the "rigorous analysis" that courts must conduct under Rule 23, and reaffirms that the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. section 2072(b), cannot be applied in a way that changes substantive rights. Wal-Mart gives antitrust defendants additional potential ammunition to defeat class certification, but it remains to be seen how courts will apply Wal-Mart to a Rule 23(b)(3) antitrust class action instead of a Rule 23(b)(2) Title VII discrimination class action.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Plaintiff Océ North America, Inc. ("Océ") brought an action against a service market supplier for copyright infringement. Defendant MCS Services, Inc. ("MCS") filed a Kodak-style "aftermarket" monopolization counterclaim, in addition to a series of common law torts, including tortuous interference with contractual relations, and prospective advantage. Finding the antitrust allegations of the counterclaim to be "implausible", the district court for the District of Maryland dismissed that claim, while allowing the tortuous interference claims to continue. Océ North America, Inc. v. MCS Services, Inc., D.Md., No. 1:10-CV-984-WMN, 6/14/11.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On July 7, 2011, the Federal Trade Commission announced a final rule amending the Hart-Scott-Rodino Premerger Notification Rules (the "Rules") and the Premerger Notification and Report Form (the "Form") and associated Instructions to streamline the Form and obtain new information that the FTC and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (the "Agencies") believe will help them in evaluating a proposed transaction's competitive impact.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On May 24, 2011, United States District Court, Central District of California, denied a motion to dismiss allegations of a "price squeeze" implemented through the granting of secret rebates to the plaintiff's customers, finding that the complaint stated a plausible claim under California Business and Professions Code section 17045. Drawing on "judicial experience and common sense", District Judge Dean D. Pregerson held that the allegations of the first amended complaint are sufficiently "plausible" on their face to withstand challenges under Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, (2007). Western Pacific Kraft, Inc. v. Duro Bag Manufacturing Company, Case No. CV 10-06017 DDP (SSx), 5/24/11.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link