Click here for a confidential contact or call:

Page 119 of 120

Supreme Court: Resale Price Maintenance No Longer Per Se Illegal; States: Not So Fast

Posted  06/26/09
The Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877, overruled the per se rule applying to resale price maintenance and replaced it with a rule of reason analysis.  Nevertheless, 13 states still forbid resale price maintenance, and the adherence of another eight states to federal precedent remains an open question. Moreover, 37 states filed an amici curiae brief...

A Five-Year Anniversary For A Major Standard-Setting Antitrust Law

Posted  06/24/09
Five years ago this month, a new federal law aimed at encouraging standard-setting activities took effect – the Standards Development Organization Advancement Act (SDOAA) of 2004.  Why did Congress pass it?  And five years later, how has it fared? In many industries, non-profit “standards development organizations” (SDOs) collaborate with businesses to develop industry-wide standards – from common light...

Think Indirect Purchaser Liability is Dead? Think Again.

Posted  06/22/09
Since the Supreme Court’s 1977 decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720, plaintiffs have not been able to recover damages suffered by indirect purchasers from anticompetitive conduct stemming from §1 of the Sherman Act.  While this bar has existed for more than 30 years, plaintiffs are not without recourse. That’s because more than 25 states enacted laws, sometimes called “Illinois Brick...

Bundled Discounts – Good For Competition?

Posted  06/10/09
The Supreme Court’s decision in Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 1109 (2009), suggests that the Court will apply predatory pricing analysis to all antitrust claims with an aspect of low pricing. So it follows that bundled-discounting claims would likely receive the same treatment from the Court that price squeeze claims did.  A bundled discount is where a firm grants a...

Price Squeeze Claims: Antitrust Or Anticompetition?

Posted  06/4/09
Some major changes could be afoot in how U.S. law governs monopolist pricing.  The Supreme Court’s February 25, 2009 decision in Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications Inc., 129 S.Ct. 1109, marks quite a departure from long-standing price claim precedent.  Let’s take a look how. Price squeezing can occur when a dominant supplier in one market also competes with its buyers in their market. ...

What Is the Standard of Causation of Monopoly?

Posted  06/1/09
CC Attorney Ankur Kapoor
Antitrust, Vol. 23, No. 3, (Summer 2009) download PDF

The Efficient Defense: The Role of Reasonable Business Justifications and Efficiencies in Reviewing Unilateral Conduct

Posted  10/22/08
CC Attorney Ankur Kapoor
Ankur Kapoor was part of a panel which explored the role of efficiencies and reasonable business justifications as defenses in monopolization / abuse of dominance cases in Canada, the United States and the European Union, at the ABA Section of Antitrust Law Teleconference.

Antitrust Interest in Private Equity

Posted  05/1/08
Business Law International (IBA) (May 2008)

The New Face of Antitrust in Intellectual Property Disputes

Posted  11/15/07
CC Attorney Ankur Kapoor
Ankur Kapoor addressed the increasing role of federal antitrust agencies in intellectual property law and policy, at the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association Annual Convention.

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly: A Discussion of the Potential Impact that the Supreme Court's Recent Decision will have on Antitrust Cases and Beyond

Posted  07/11/07
CC Attorney Jeffrey I. Shinder
Jeffrey Shinder participated as a panel member for the ABA-CLE Teleconference.
1 117 118 119 120


Subscribe to receive email updates from the Constantine Cannon blogs

Sign up for: