• EMAIL
  • PRINT
  • PDF
  • Bookmark and Share

Antitrust

Representative Matters

We secured dismissal of state law antitrust and unfair competition claims brought against our client in Louisiana by that state’s Attorney General. The state court held that the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, not the AG, was the party vested with the cause of action. Furthermore, the court held that indirect purchasers cannot recover damages under Louisiana’s antitrust and unfair practices statutes.
We successfully defended three actions by distributors terminated after our client’s company was sold to a major international beverage manufacturer. We won each case at the pre-trial, preliminary injunction stage and subsequently resolved the matters.
For a fraction of the original demand (less than 1 percent), we favorably settled a multidistrict class action litigation brought in the Eastern District of Louisiana asserting Sherman Act Section 1 and 2 claims against the largest manufacturers and largest distributor in the swimming pool products industry.
We represented more than a dozen Spring Air mattress manufacturers and licensees in MDL litigation in federal court against several domestic and international manufacturers of polyurethane foam. The suit sought damages and injunctive relief from defendants pursuant to §1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act alleging that, for more than a decade, defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix the price of polyurethane foam used in our mattress products. On the eve of trial, we reached a very favorable settlement.
Served as co-counsel in defense of multiple MDL antitrust class actions related to our client’s Hatch-Waxman Act settlements with generic manufacturers. The classes, consisting of end users, distributors and retailers, claimed that settlements with generic manufacturers harmed competition and artificially delayed the entry of a generic bioequivalent. This “pay-for-delay” case was the first to reach trial since the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in FTC v. Actavis. A Massachusetts jury found that there was no causation between the settlements and no proof that a generic could have entered the market earlier than the date permitted under the settlements.
We are handling the defense of a class action brought by purchasers of a pharmaceutical product who claim unlawful pricing in violation of the federal antitrust laws and various state consumer protection laws.
We recently settled our client’s lawsuit alleging violations of federal and California state antitrust laws including tying, exclusive dealing, monopolization and attempted monopolization of flash memory technology and related markets, as well as patent misuse and unfair competition.
We defended a class action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging Sherman Act Section 1 and 2 claims as well as tortious interference with prospective economic relationships, based on a novel product-hopping antitrust theory of liability. The EDPA’s favorable decision was affirmed by the Third Circuit.