Author Archives: Steve Semeraro

European Court of Justice Orders EC to Consider Pro-Competitive Justifications for Limiting Parallel Trading

The European Court of Justice has upheld a lower court’s reversal of a European Commission decision to prohibit Glaxo-SmithKline from restricting parallel trading of drugs among countries within the EU.  Following a policy of open parallel trading the Commission rejected Glaxo-SmithKline’s attempt to sell a number of drugs into the Spanish market at lower prices, […]

Market Definition Issue Prevent Summary Judgment in Radiology Case

In Park West Radiology P.C. et al. v. CareCore National LLC et al., Southern District of New York Judge Victor Marrero held that multiple issues of law and fact are relevant to CareCore National LLC’s market share; whether it possesses sufficient market power to affect pricing; and whether the plaintiffs have sustained antitrust injury.  As a result summary judgment would […]

Price Discrimination Case Against Citgo to Move Forward

In Stephenson Oil Co. et al. v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., Northern District of Oklahoma Judge Terence Kern has rejected a request by Citgo Petroleum Corp. to dismiss a putative class action brought by gasoline distributors alleging that the oil giant offered secret discounted rates to certain distributors.  In their suit, Plaintiffs alleged that Citgo lured […]

Insurance Fee Setting Protected by Filed Rate Doctrine

In In Re: New Jersey Title Insurance Litigation, New Jersey District Court Judge Garrett E. Brown Jr. has tossed an antitrust action that accused more than a dozen major title insurers of conspiring with a New Jersey rating bureau to fix prices.  In urging dismissal the defendants maintained that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by […]

Airline Commission Conspiracy Case Dismissed

Update March 2010: The travel agents have petitioned for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. In In re: Travel Agent Commission Antitrust Litigation, 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a dismissal of a suit for failure to state a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, brought by travel agents accusing major airlines […]

Court Looks to Competitive Printer Market in Dismissing Ink Monopolization Claim

In Xerox Corp. v. Media Sciences International Inc. et al., Southern District of New York Judge Richard Holwell granted Xerox Corp.’s motion to dismiss remaining counterclaims that it maintained an unfair monopoly on the market for the ink used in its printers, in a patent infringement suit it brought against Media Sciences Inc.  Though Media […]

EU High Court Rejects Appeal of Fines Imposed on Banking Cartel

In Erste Bank et al. v. Commission of the European Communities, Europe’s highest court has rejected an appeal from four Austrian banks that sought a reduction of €160 million ($155 million) in fines that were imposed on them by European regulators over antitrust violations.  The fines stemmed from an Austrian political party’s complaint lodged against […]

Price Discrimination Case Against Snapple Dismissed

In Camarda v. Snapple Distributors Inc., 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that local drivers who distribute Snapple Beverage Corp. drinks failed to establish injury under the Robinson-Patman Act in price discrimination suits accusing Snapple of letting other distributors horn in on their territory and undersell them.  According to the lawsuit, a local distributor paid […]

Tying Claim Against Wendy’s to Move Forward

In Burda et al. v. Wendy’s International Inc. et al., Southern District of Ohio Judge George C. Smith has denied a bid  by Wendy’s International Inc. to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a franchisee accusing the fast food giant of violating federal antitrust and state breach of contract laws by forcing him to purchase hamburger buns […]

Monopolization Claim in Eyelash Market Dismissed

In Allergan Inc. v. Photomedex Inc. et al., Central District of California Judge James V. Selna partly dismissed Athena Cosmetics Inc.’s allegations accusing rival Allergan Inc. of monopolizing the relevant market in ongoing litigation that arose from a patent related to eyelash enhancement products.   The judge tossed Athena’s counterclaims of unfair competition and monopolization as they […]