Category Archives: Antitrust Standing

Montana State Antitrust Dispute Resolved on Summary Judgment

District of Montana Judge Richard F. Cebull dismissed state antitrust claims filed by Montana Camo brought under the state’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, granting Cabela’s motion for summary judgment.  The plaintiff supplied camouflage clothing and licensed clothing designs to Cabela’s until disagreements arose over pricing.  Montana Camo claims that Cabela’s violated state antitrust law by (1) [...]

Indirect Payers Fail to Vacate Summary Judgment Against Bank America and Others for Fee Fixing

Northern District of California Judge Charles Breyer denied plaintiff bank customers’ motion to vacate a judgment, upholding an earlier ruling granting summary judgment for defendants.  Plaintiffs lacked standing, the court held, to sue Bank of America and others for conspiring to fix ATM charge fees. Judge Breyer explained that the indirect payers of these fees could [...]

Standing Question Certified for Review in Sanofi Case

District of NJ Judge Mary Cooper has issued an order certifying for interlocutory appeal her decision to deny defendant Sanofi’s motion to dismiss the claims against it on the ground that the plaintiff is a “mere distributor” and not a competitor.   The court reasoned that there are substantial grounds for difference of opinion on the [...]

Tin Can Price Fixing Case Dismissed

Judge Lawrence O’Neil, E.D. CA, dismissed a claim by a tomato canning company against US Steel and a Korean steel manufacturer alleging that the two conspired to monopolize the market for steel used to make tin cans and to monopolize the market.  The defendant’s argued that the plaintiff’s price fixing claims for damages were barred [...]

Travel Content Exclusive Dealing Case to Move Forward

Florida District Court Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga permitted ICE Portal’s antitrust case against VFM Leonargo to move forward.  The two companies produce enhanced photographs and video content for travel websites.  Although the court dismissed claims that the defendant’s acquisition of Leonardo Media competitively injured ICE Portal, it allowed claims alleging illegal tying and exclusive dealing [...]

Monpolization Case Against BP to Move Forward

Judge James Zagel, N.D. Illinois, permitted monopolization claims against BP for seeking to corner the market for propane to proceed.  The court held that issues of fact prohibit summary judgment on BP’s standing and statute of limitation defenses.

Georgia Hospital Has Standing to Sue Competitor

The Eleventh Circuit has ruled that Palmyra Hospital has suffered antitrust injury and is an efficient plaintiff to challenge competitor Phoebe Hospital’s leveraging of a state granted certificate of need (“CON”) to exclude Palmyra, which does not have a certificate, from providing services to Blue Cross customers that do not require a CON.

Datel Case Challegning Microsoft’s Xbox Restrictions to Proceed

Judge Elizabeth Laporte, Northern District of California, dismissed Datel’s monopolization claim but allowed its other antitrust claims to proceed against Microsoft.  The monopolization claim was dismissed on standing grounds because Datel does not compete in the multiplayer gaming market and Microsoft’s monopolization of the market would help Datel.  Claims based on Microsoft’s update of the [...]

Third Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Claims Against Dentsply

The Third Circuit affirmed the dismisal of two cases challenging Dentsply’s agreements with dealers with respect to the sale of competitive artificial teeth.  The court first upheld the denial of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that an earlier decision against Dentsply in a government case was not sufficient to establish injury [...]

Carbon Fiber Price Fixing Suit Is Allowed To Proceed

In Hexcel Corp. v. Ineos Polymers Inc., Central District of California Judge Mariana Pfaelzer denied carbon fiber manufacturer Ineo Polymers Inc.’s motion to dismiss a price-fixing suit brought by rival Hexcel Corp., rejecting Ineos’ claims that Hexcel lacked standing to bring the suit and that Hexcel’s claims were time-barred. The court held that although the [...]