Gene Crew has devoted virtually his entire career trying antitrust cases on behalf of plaintiffs and defendants alike. He has repeatedly led his experienced team in obtaining unprecedented recoveries for his firm's clients in litigated cases, often enhancing the law with important new judicial precedents in the process. Mr. Crew's defense clients have done well also, having never been held liable for damages in any case he has tried since he began practice in the early 1960s. The same clients often obtained substantial recoveries on their counterclaims against plaintiffs as well. Because of his antitrust trial successes, the U.S. Department of Justice (Antitrust Division) retained Mr. Crew to provide trial assistance in two major government cases during the 1990s - United States v. NASDAQ and United States v. General Electric. Mr. Crew has argued for his clients before the United States Supreme Court and numerous trial and appellate courts across the country. He is a Fellow of The American College of Trial Lawyers. Mr. Crew served as a Delegate to The Judicial Conference for The Ninth Circuit and on the Board of Governors of The Association of Business Trial Lawyers. He was also granted the Antitrust Lawyer of the Year award by the State Bar of California in 2009. Mr. Crew has taught antitrust law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law for several years and currently teaches a course on the critical relationship between antitrust and intellectual property law at both Hastings and the University of San Francisco. After conclusion of trial in Theme Promotions, Inc. dba Theme Co-Op Promotions vs. News America Marketing FSI, Inc., Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California declared: "Eugene Crew is a preeminent antitrust litigator, a lawyer truly at the top of the professional ladder." Mr. Crew is listed in the 2011 edition of Chambers USA for Antitrust. In 2011, he was named by the International Who's Who of Business Lawyers in the area of Competition Law. Professional & Community Activities American Bar Association, Member of Antitrust Section, Member of Litigation Section American College of Trial Lawyers, Fellow Association of Business Trial Lawyers, Member Board of Governors Bar Association of San Francisco, Member Judicial Conference for the Ninth Circuit, Lawyer Delegate (1991-1993) Experience Determined Productions Inc. v. R. Dakin Inc. *, Represented R. Dakin Inc. (Dakin) in litigation that commenced with Dakin as the defendant but concluded with Dakin as the successful plaintiff. Determined Productions sued Dakin in federal court, alleging that Dakin had monopolized all Korean toy manufacturing sources with exclusive supply contracts in violation of the antitrust laws. We first obtained summary dismissal of the antitrust claims against Dakin. That was affirmed on appeal. Then, on behalf of Dakin, we brought suit against Determined Productions in state court alleging that Determined Productions' federal court action interfered with Dakin's exclusive supply contracts with the Korean manufacturers. The jury awarded a substantial judgment in Dakin's favor and that judgment was similarly affirmed on appeal.
Determined Productions, Inc. v. R. Dakin, 514 F. Supp. 2d 645 (N.D. Cal. 1979); aff'd, 649 F.2d 866 (1981). Daishowa International v. North Coast Export Cooperative *, Reversed client's role from accused defendant to successful plaintiff. Just 90 days before trial, defendant North Coast Export Cooperative (North Coast Export) retained us to defend it in a federal court breach of contract action claiming several million dollars in damages. We discovered evidence that North Coast Export's contract with Daishowa International (Daishowa) was the result of a price fixing conspiracy between Daishowa and several Japanese importers and trading companies. We promptly counterclaimed under the antitrust laws, resulting in a substantial monetary payment to North Coast Export to settle the litigation. Amarel v. Connell Rice and Sugar Co. *, Defended Connell Rice and Sugar Co., the largest rice exporter in the United States, in a nine-week jury trial of antitrust claims brought against Connell and Joseph L. Alioto (the former Mayor of San Francisco) in connection with the sale of over $100 million worth of California rice to the Government of Korea during the 1980s. Plaintiffs were 70 Northern California rice growers. The jury returned a verdict for defendants and, following appeal, was settled for mutual releases and the payment of defendants' costs. JBL Enterprises Inc. v. Jhirmack Enterprises Inc. *, Defended International Playtex against antitrust litigation. After our client acquired Jhirmack (the California shampoo company), which had previously distributed its shampoo products solely through professional hair salons, it began to merchandise Jhirmack "over-the- counter" - i.e., through retail chain outlets. Several professional salon distributors instituted antitrust lawsuits against Playtex, which the court ordered consolidated for trial. The Northern District Court of California issued judgment in favor of our client. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in an important decision about relevant market definition in antitrust cases.
JBL Enterprises, Inc. v. Jhirmack Enterprises, Inc., 509 F. Supp 357 (N.D. Cal. 1981); aff'd, 698 F.2d 101 (9th Cir. 1983). Clipper Exxpress Company v. RMMTB *, Represented Clipper Exxpress Company, a freight transportation services company, in an antitrust litigation against 15 nationwide rival carriers. In the most sweeping of terms the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued several exceptions to the Noerr-Pennington immunity from the antitrust laws. Case settled.
Clipper Exxpress Company v. RMMTB, 690 F. 2d 1240 (9th Cir. 1982). Zeny Computer Systems v. Acer Incorporated Theme Promotions Inc. dba Theme Co-Op Promotions vs. News America Marketing FSI Inc., Succeeded in winning a jury verdict for a small San Francisco marketing firm against a subsidiary of the $55-billion News Corporation empire, operated by Rupert Murdoch. The firm proved to the jury that News America used steep discriminatory price discounts to corner the United States market for promotional circulars that were distributed through newspapers around the nation. The federal court affirmed the jury's verdict as a violation of the California antitrust laws, which prohibit the use of discriminatory price discounts to lock out competitors.
Theme Promotions, Inc. dba Theme Co-Op Promotions vs. News America Marketing FSI, Inc., 546 F 3d 991 (2008); 731 F. Supp. 2d 937 (N.D. Cal. 2010). Ernest W. Hahn Inc. v. Codding Enterprises *, Represented Ernest W. Hahn Inc. (Hahn), a nationally recognized developer of regional shopping centers, in an antitrust case against a competitor for having instigated over a dozen harassment suits against Hahn for the purpose of preventing the development of Hahn's shopping center as the cornerstone of the City of Santa Rosa's urban renewal project. After the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's dismissal of Hahn's complaint, the firm tried Hahn's case before a federal jury for a month. The case then settled for $24 million.
Hahn v. Codding, 615 F. 2d 830 (N.D. Cal. 1980). Mt. Hood Stages Inc. v. Greyhound Corp. *, Represented Mt. Hood Stages Inc. (Mt. Hood) in an antitrust trial against Greyhound for monopolizing the passenger bus market in the Western United States, resulting in the largest jury verdict in Oregon history. Argued for affirmance of this unprecedented judgment before the United States Supreme Court. Persuading the Court to expand the equitable doctrine of tolling in antitrust cases, succeeded in recovering 20 years worth of antitrust damages for plaintiff - almost $25 million - despite a four year statute of limitations.
Mt. Hood Stages, Inc. v. Greyhound Corp., 555 F. 2d 687 (D. Or. 1977); 583 F. 2d 469 (9th Cir. 1978); 437 U.S. 322 (1978); 616 F. 2d 394 (S. Ct. 1980). The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company et al. v. Superior Court, Represented three life insurance brokers who provided consulting services to the personal injury plaintiffs' bar in connection with the sale of annuities used to fund "structured settlements" of tort victims' injury claims. Defendants were several life insurance carriers and brokers who, plaintiffs alleged, concertedly refused to provide needed annuity information to any broker who consulted with personal injury victims' lawyers. Defendants therefore boycotted plaintiffs for the purpose of barring them from the market and thereby minimizing the compensation received by tort victims for their injuries. We won an important ruling from the California Supreme Court that life insurance companies are not exempt from California's antitrust laws and that plaintiffs therefore also had a valid claim under Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 for unfair competition. A substantial monetary settlement in plaintiffs' favor ensued.
The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company et al. v. Superior Court, 10 Cal. 4th 457 (Cal. 1995). United States v. General Electric Co., Represented the United States in this antitrust complaint against General Electric (GE), alleging that GE violated the Sherman Act by forcing hospitals purchasing GE's medical imaging equipment and licensing its equipment maintenance software to agree not to compete with GE in servicing other hospitals' medical imaging equipment. After obtaining a favorable ruling from the Court, GE remove its illegal restriction. Seoul Semiconductor Co. Ltd. v. Nichia Corp., Represented Seoul Semiconductor Co., a display components company, in an antitrust case, alleging several baseless lawsuits brought by the defendant to limit competition in the light-emitting diode market. Case settled.
Seoul Semiconductor Co. Ltd. v. Nichia Corp., No. 4:08-cv-04932-PJH (N.D.Cal. filed Oct. 28, 2008). Southwest Marine Inc. v. Campbell Industries *, Represented Campbell Industries following trial where a federal jury returned its verdict that the defendant had violated the antitrust laws by excluding plaintiff from access to a Navy ship repair drydock in San Diego. The verdict was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the case was remanded solely for a determination of damages. Defendant then retained us (we did not represent defendant at the liability trial) to represent it at the damage trial. We immediately moved for summary judgment, however, contending that the defendant's actions were protected from antitrust liability by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine as the dry dock was government-owned. The federal court granted defendant's motion, and plaintiff did not appeal.
Southwest Marine Inc. v. Campbell Indus., 811 F.2d 501 (S.D.Cal. 1987). GRiD Systems Corp. v. Texas Instruments Inc., Represented Tandy Corporation (Radio Shack) in this patent/antitrust case against Texas Instruments (TI). Tandy Corporation (Tandy) alleged that TI violated the Sherman Act by obtaining a key patent through fraud on the PTO and using that fraudulently obtained patent to force Tandy to license TI's entire portfolio of patents for $50 million. After plaintiffs obtained favorable rulings the case was settled for a substantial (but confidential) sum.
GRiD Systems Corp. v. Texas Instruments, Inc., 771 F. Supp. 1033 (N. D. Cal. 1991). St. Luke's Hospital v. California Pacific Medical Center, Represented St. Luke's in a state court action under the Cartwright Act (Bus. & Prof. Code §16720) and the Unfair Competition Act (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200) against California Pacific Medical Center and its parent Sutter Health System, alleging that defendants had long term exclusionary contracts with Brown & Toland (the largest physician group in Northern California) for the purpose of eliminating St. Luke's from the market. By preventing St. Luke's from competing on the merits for managed care patients, defendants' restraints threatened to shut down St. Luke's - leaving a large portion of the San Francisco community needing medical care at risk. Successfully obtained a settlement for St. Luke's on the eve of trial which guarantees St. Luke's the capital resources needed to allow it to continue its charity services to the needy of San Francisco for decades to come. Lingo et al. v. Microsoft, Served as lead counsel for plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit instituted against Microsoft under California's antitrust statutes. The lawsuit, which settled in 2003 for $1.1 billion after four years of litigation, was prosecuted by the firm on behalf of 14 million California purchasers of Microsoft's personal computer operating system and applications software, alleging that Microsoft used its monopoly power to overcharge California businesses and consumers for its software products. The case settled with Microsoft agreeing to pay $1.1 billion to the class and the bulk of any unclaimed funds to go to the California Department of Education for the purchase of computer products for California's financially disadvantaged K-12 schools. This constitutes one of the largest monopoly overcharge recoveries in antitrust history. After presiding over the California antitrust case, the firm was asked to perform a leading role in trying the Minnesota antitrust class action against Microsoft in Minneapolis. Six weeks into trial, Microsoft settled the Minnesota action on terms that were comparable to the settlement terms in California. The firm was also retained to help Sun Microsystems and several other significant Microsoft competitors recover the damages that Microsoft's antitrust violations caused them as well, resulting in a settlement worth several billion dollars to Sun Microsystems. The firm was then hired by the State of California and all of its cities, counties and political subdivisions to recover the illegal overcharges they have been forced to pay Microsoft for computer software, resulting in a $70 million settlement for the State of California against Microsoft. LMP Corporation v. Universal Manufacturing Corporation, Represented plaintiffs who were inventors of a patented energy saving electronic ballast technology which defendant licensed from plaintiffs, then shelved it for the purpose of eliminating competition from the market. Following a six month jury trial, the firm obtained a $96-million verdict for plaintiffs which was affirmed "without reservation" on appeal. Service Engineering Co. v. Southwest Marine Inc. *, Represented Triple A in litigation against major ship repair competitor, Southwest Marine (Southwest). Southwest began the fray by suing Triple A for theft of a trade secret (i.e., a "secret process" used in the preparation of competitive bids on U.S. Navy ship repair contracts under SBA). We first persuaded the California Court of Appeal to order the trial court to enter summary judgment in Triple A's favor because Southwest Marine's alleged trade secret was a fraudulent business practice. We then commenced a federal court action on behalf of Triple A, claiming Southwest Marine's fraudulent attempts to monopolize the U.S. Navy ship repair market violated the federal antitrust laws. A substantial monetary settlement in Triple A's favor ensued. *Experience gained by attorney prior to joining Kilpatrick Townsend News 22 June 2011, Twenty-Seven Kilpatrick Townsend Attorneys Named to 2011 International Who's Who of Business Lawyers, News Releases 13 June 2011, Kilpatrick Townsend Again Earns Highest Recognition From CHAMBERS USA 2011, News Releases |