Antitrust & Trade Regulation

• Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly ___ U. S. ___ (2007) (Stating a claim under section 1 of the Sherman Act requires a complaint with enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest that an agreement was made. An allegation of parallel conduct and a bare assertion of conspiracy will not suffice.)
• Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC v. Billing ___ U. S. ___ (2007) (In a suit brought by a group of investors alleging that petitioners-investment banks, acting as underwriting firms, violated antitrust laws when they formed syndicates to help execute initial public offerings (IPOs) for hundreds of technology-related companies, a court of appeals' decision reversing dismissal of the complaints is reversed as federal securities law implicitly precludes the application of the antitrust laws to the conduct alleged in the case.)
• F. HOFFMAN-LA ROCHE LTD. v. EMPAGRAM 493 U. S. 165 (1989) (Where price-fixing affects customers within and outside the U.S., but both these effects are independent, the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act exception stating the Sherman Act will not apply to trade involving foreign nations is inapplicable.)
• Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Indep. Ink, Inc. 547 U. S. 28 (2006) (In the context of antitrust claims, since a patent does not necessarily confer market power upon a patentee, in all cases involving a "tying" arrangement, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant has market power in the tying product.)
• INTEL CORP. v. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. 542 U. S. 241 (2004) (In an anti-trust case, USC Section 1782(a) authorizes, but does not require a district court to compel discovery requested by an adverse party to be used in a case brought before the Directorate-General of the Commission of European Communities.)
• Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U. S. 373, which makes it per se illegal under section 1 of the Sherman Act for a manufacturer and its distributor to agree on the minimum price the distributor can charge for the manufacturer's goods, is overruled. Vertical price restraints are to be judged by the rule of reason.
• LORILLARD TOBACCO CO. v. REILLY 533 U. S. 525 (2001) (The Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, 15 USC 1333, preempts state regulation of advertising or promotion of cigarettes, including regulations governing outdoor and point-of-sale advertising of cigarettes, but not regulation of actual sales or use of cigarettes.)
• PHARM. RESEARCH & MFRS. OF AM. v. WALSH 538 U. S. 644 (2003) (A preliminary injunction preventing implementation of a state program reducing prescription drug prices for state residents was improper, where an association of non-resident drug manufacturers could not show probability of success on Commerce Clause claims.)
• Texaco v. Dagher 547 U. S. 1 (2006) (It is not per se illegal under section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1, for a lawful, economically integrated joint venture to set the prices at which it sells its products.)
• USPS v. FLAMINGO INDUS. (USA) LTD. 540 U. S. 736 (2004) (Plaintiff is not subject to antitrust liability. In both form and function, it is not a separate antitrust person from the US but is part of the Government, and so is not controlled by the antitrust laws.)
• VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. v. LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO, LLP 540 U. S. 398 (2004) (Where there is a regulatory structure to deter and remedy anticompetitive harm, antitrust enforcement will tend to provide little additional benefit.)
• Volvo Trucks N. Am., Inc. v. Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc. 546 U. S. 164 (2006) (A manufacturer may not be held liable for secondary-line price discrimination under the Robinson-Patman Price Discrimination Act in the absence of a showing that the manufacturer discriminated between dealers competing to resell its product to the same retail customer.)
• Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc. ___ U. S. ___ (2007) (In the context of the federal officer removal statute, the fact that a federal regulatory agency directs, supervises, and monitors a company's activities in considerable detail does not bring that company within 28 U.S.C. section 1442(a)(1)'s scope so as to permit removal of the action from state court to federal court.)
• Weyerhauser Co. v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co., Inc. ___ U. S. ___ (2007) (In the antitrust context of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, the test the Court applied to claims of predatory pricing in Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209 (1993), also applies to claims of predatory bidding, which involves the exercise of market power on the buy side or input side of a market to drive the price of a critical input to high levels.)

News & Analysis

Antitrust News

Search News

Antitrust Case Summaries

Search Case Summaries

Law Firm Articles

Search Articles