February 17, 2011 – 10:26 am
Southern District of Georgia Judge Randell Hall dismissed with prejudice a Real-estate broker’s suit alleging that the Greater Augusta Association of Realtors Inc. (GAAR) violated the Sherman Act by adopting rules that discriminated against agents who operated solely online. Separately, Keller alleged that the rules violated a consent judgment in an earlier case. There the National Association of Realtors—the parent company of the GAAR- agreed with the USDOJ that it would not adopt rules favoring one group of realtors over another.
Judge Hall dismissed the claim because Keller failed to plead that the policy restrained competition in the realtor market. Also, the court dismissed the consent-judgment violation claim for lack of standing .
January 31, 2011 – 1:12 pm
Antitrust regulators requested drug patent settlement information for 2010 from drug manufacturers to determine if the agreements have delayed generic drug entry into the market. The request for information is the second monitoring session activated by the EC. The first monitoring exercise determined that “pay for delay” settlement agreements decreased significantly once the EC began monitoring the drug sector.
The purpose of the second inquiry is to determine whether these types of delay agreements are continuing to diminish. The EC has not released the names of the companies they are seeking information from, but have stated that if it comes across any troubling information it will institute a more targeted search. The EC plans on releasing a report with a statistical analysis of the 2010 patent settlement agreements in the first half of 2011.
January 31, 2011 – 1:05 pm
Southern District of Florida Judge Paul Huck granted partial summary judgment for Nielson on an antitrust claim, deferred ruling on breach of contract and Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claims. The plaintiff, Sunbeam Television Corp., alleged that Nielson used faulty viewership data to plummet ratings for Sunbeam’s stations. Sunbeam also alleged that Nielson excluded competitors through exclusionary tactics. But Judge Huck ruled that because Sunbeam was unable to proffer evidence of a willing and able competitor, it failed to prove that Nielson excluded competition.
January 31, 2011 – 9:05 am
The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a conspiracy case claiming that 10 defendants, including Japanese firm Ajinomoto Co. Inc., which distributed aspartame in the United States; Monsanto, which owned rights to aspartame product NutraSweet; and Delaware-based NutraSweet Co. conspired to increase the price of the sweetener. The court dismissed the case as outside the statute of limitations, because the defendants had not purchased aspartame for over 5 years. The plaintiffs argued that the conspiracy had been fraudulently concealed, but the court held that the plaintiffs failed to take sufficient care during the statutory period. “A plaintiff who neglects to take reasonable measures to uncover the existence of injury,” the court explained, “is not entitled to the benefit of the fraudulent concealment doctrine.”
January 28, 2011 – 4:20 pm
The Canadian Competition Bureau filed an application with the Competition Tribunal seeking to stop Visa Canada Corp. and MasterCard International Inc. from enforcing agreements restraining competition on the fees that merchants pay to accept credit cards. Visa and MasterCard rules allegedly block retailers from encouraging customers to use cash or debit cards, which carry lower acceptance fees, instead of credit cards or from placing a surcharge on purchases made with credit cards. Under the policies, a merchant that wishes to accept payment by Visa or MasterCard must also accept all cards the companies offer, including premium credit cards that carry higher merchant fees. The action seeks to prevent enforcement of each of these rules.
January 28, 2011 – 4:00 pm
The Sixth Circuit, disagreeing with the Federal Communications Commission, has held that incumbent telephone carriers need not provide “entrance facilities” to competitors at regulated cost-based rates. Instead, they may charge market rates or refuse to provide the facilities at all. The court held that the 1996 Telecommunications Act clearly distinguishes between interconnection facilities that much be provided at regulated rates and entrance facilities that do not. The decision conflicts with other circuits as well as the FCC’s own interpretation. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear argument this spring.
January 28, 2011 – 1:15 pm
Antitrust regulators raided the offices of Daimler AG, Volvo AB, and other truck manufacturers as they began to investigate cartel activity. The EC announced that it had reason to believe that truck manufacturers may have operated a cartel or abused their dominant market positions to restrict competition. All five truck manufactures involved in the probe are cooperating with the regulators. The regulators emphasized that the opening of an investigation does not mean that the manufacturers restricted competition.
January 28, 2011 – 1:10 pm
District of Massachusetts’s Judge Michael A. Posner granted Specialized Technology Resources Inc.’s (STR) motion to dismiss a suit brought by JPS Elastomerics Corp., accusing STR of attempting to drive JPS out of the specialized polymer market by bringing a sham claim in state court.
JPS brought the suit in federal court after having lost a state case in which the court ruled against JPS on STR’s trade secret claim. Judge Posner dismissed the suit, explaining that because STR won in state court, Supreme Court precedent precluded JPS’s sham claim. The Supreme Court has held that a winning lawsuit is by definition not sham litigation. JPS attempted to find an exception to the rule by claiming that STR had obtained the judgment through fraud on the court. Judge Posner rejected the argument.
January 28, 2011 – 10:02 am
Middle District of Tennessee Judge William J. Haynes Jr rejected a motion to dismiss K&S Associates Inc. claim that members of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine conspired to deny its lab the accreditation that it needed to operate. For 27 years, K&S has operated one of three U.S. dosimetry calibration laboratories with AAPM certification. In 2008, however, a German manufacturer of dosimetry equipment agreed to buy K&S and AAPM soon stripped the accreditation allegedly because of concerns that the lab would favor equipment manufactured by its parent company. The complaint alleged that “K&S’ direct competitors were permitted to directly influence to the decision as to whether K&S should be permitted to continue to operate.” The court rejected defendants’ argument that the complaint alleged only parallel conduct that did not support an inference of agreement.
January 26, 2011 – 5:16 pm
The European Commission is investigating cement manufacturers suspected of engaging in anticompetitive business practices. The Commission is concerned about possible import/export restrictions, market sharing, and price coordination in the markets for cement and related products.