martindale.com
Legal Library
|
Show: results per page Sort by:  | In Agricultural Regulation, A "Flawed Rate" is Not a "Filed Rate" For Damage Purposes
Don T. Hibner; Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP;
Legal Alert/Article September 24, 2012, previously published on September 19, 2012 Notwithstanding the general applicability of the Filed Rate Doctrine, the Ninth Circuit recently held that it does not necessarily bar producer class actions for overcharges. Whether a given rating authority has “rejected” a rate under its regulatory jurisdiction, albeit after the fact,...
| | Summary Judgment Dooms Attempted Monopolization Claim in Small Container Trash Hauling Market
Don T. Hibner; Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP;
Legal Alert/Article September 10, 2012, previously published on September 4, 2012 In All Star Carts and Vehicles, Inc., et al. v. BFI Canada Income Fund, et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-01816-LDW-AKT, August 1, 2012, the District Court for Eastern District of New York recently granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to establish...
| | Kansas Supreme Court Declares "Rule of Reason" Inapplicable to Kansas Antitrust Law; Legislature May Have a Different Idea
Tyler M. Cunningham, Don T. Hibner; Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP;
Legal Alert/Article May 24, 2012, previously published on May 23, 2012 In Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (2007), the U.S. Supreme Court expressly overruled the categorical ban on vertical price fixing agreements that had existed for nearly a century prior. See Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons, 220 U.S. 373 (1911)....
| | "Planogram" and "Category Captain" Marketing Programs Held Non-Exclusionary
Don T. Hibner; Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP;
Legal Alert/Article May 14, 2012, previously published on May 10, 2012 Rival condom manufacturer's antitrust claims dismissed. Church & Dwight Co., Inc. v. Mayer Laboratories, Inc., United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. C-10-4429 EMC (April 12, 2012).
| | Allegations of Conspiracy to Limit Crop Production: Ripe for Analysis Under Capper-Volstead
Don T. Hibner; Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP;
Legal Alert/Article December 29, 2011, previously published on December 28, 2011 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...
| | Allegations of Conspiracy to Fix Prices in Ohio Rock Salt Duopoly Flunk "Plausibility" Analysis
Don T. Hibner; Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP;
Legal Alert/Article November 10, 2011, previously published on November 4, 2011 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.
| | ANDA Automatic Stay of FDA Approval Does Not Defeat Standing in Sham Litigation Antitrust Counterclaim
Don T. Hibner; Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP;
Legal Alert/Article September 22, 2011, previously published on September 20, 2011 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")....
| | Antitrust Counterclaim in Patent Infringement Action Lacks Plausible Allegations of Competitive Injury
Don T. Hibner; Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP;
Legal Alert/Article August 25, 2011, previously published on August 22, 2011 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...
| | Aftermarket Monopolization Claims Dismissed as Afterthought
Don T. Hibner; Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP;
Legal Alert/Article July 14, 2011, previously published on July 11, 2011 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...
| | In Secret Rebate Case, If It Walks Like A Duck, Allegations That It Will Also Quack Are Plausible
Don T. Hibner; Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP;
Legal Alert/Article June 21, 2011, previously published on June 16, 2011 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...
|
|