In In re: TFT-LCD Flat Panel Antitrust Litigation, Northern District of California Judge Susan Illston denied two motions for partial summary judgment, filed by several electronics makers in order to nix LCD multidistrict litigation price-fixing claims against them. Some of the largest electronics retailers in theU.S., such as Target Corp., Best Buy Co. Inc., and Sears Roebuck & Co., sued a slew of LCD makers, claiming they paid inflated prices for electronics that incorporated LCD panels that were allegedly price-fixed.
Defendants moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that pursuant to the Ninth Circuit ruling in Royal Printing v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their claims under the Sherman and Clayton Acts because they purchased finished products and not LCD panels directly. The court denied defendants’ motion, holding that in July, the Ninth Circuit clarified an exception to the Royal Printing v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. ruling when it decided In re: ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation. The ATM Fee ruling contains language allowing indirect purchasers antitrust standing when they can show “parental control” between direct purchasers and the alleged conspirators. According to Judge Illston, ATM Fee didn’t “purport to change the Royal Printing standard, but rather applied it to the complicated facts of that case,” which refutes defendants’ argument that the ownership exception can only apply “downstream.” The court also pointed out that “the ATM Fee discussion recognized that the touchstone question is ownership or control, and clarified that the ‘realistic possibility of suit’ inquiry outlined in Royal Printing is not a separate exception — it is an analysis to be done in connection with the ownership/control exception.”