Antitrust in the News

Harrison (Buzz) Frahn, Steven D. McLellan, Justin J. CalderonSimpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP On January 25, 2018, Judge Denise J. Casper moved the parties in In re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation closer to trial by denying motions for summary judgment from both sides.  No. 14-md-02503, 2018 WL 563144, at *1 (D. Mass. Jan. 25, 2018).  Defendants Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation (“Medicis”) and Impax Laboratories, Inc. (“Impax”) (collectively “Defendants”) argued that Plaintiffs could not carry their burden under a Sherman Act Section 1… Read more

Christina TabaccoZelle LLP On February 1, 2018, Judge Catherine C. Eagles of the District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina certified a class of medical school faculty from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (“UNC”) and Duke University who alleged that the universities violated section 1 of the Sherman Act by agreeing to and enforcing a “no lateral hire” policy that prevented medical faculty from obtaining employment from the rival campuses and suppressed faculty wages. Seaman v.… Read more

On January 10, 2018, U.S. District Judge Gail Dein granted Sanofi’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint. The plaintiffs, who are purchasers of insulin glargine products Lantus and Lantus SoloSTAR, alleged that Sanofi improperly extended its monopoly for Lantus and Lantus SoloSTAR by improperly listing six patents in the FDA Orange Book and by pursuing, and then settling, sham litigation against Eli Lilly and Company (Lilly). Read more

Bethany CaracuzzoPritzker Levine LLP On January 29, 2018, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District ruled, in Apple Inc. v. Shamrell, et al, 2018 WL 579858, that a California state trial court may consider only reliable expert opinion evidence on class certification.  This is the first time a California appellate court has held that Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747—the state law equivalent of the federal Daubert standard governing the reliability and admissibility of expert opinion—applies at… Read more

Elizabeth T. CastilloCotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP On January 23, 2018, in a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court abused its discretion in certifying a nationwide settlement class by failing to perform a “rigorous predominance analysis” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 23(b)(3) to “determine whether variations in state consumer protection laws, or individual factual questions regarding exposure to the misleading statements, precluded certification.”  In re Hyundai and Kia… Read more

Harrison (Buzz) Frahn, Jennifer S. Palmer, Alexander S. Moser Simpson Thatcher & Bartlett LLP On January 2, 2018, Judge William H. Orrick of the Northern District of California turned up the heat on defendants in In re Korean Ramen Antitrust Litigation , denying their motions for summary judgment and ruling in favor of plaintiffs on several evidentiary questions.  Defendants Nongshim Co., Ltd., Nongshim America, Inc. (collectively Nongshim), Ottogi Co., Ltd., and Ottogi America, Inc. (collectively Ottogi) moved for summary judgment on both procedural… Read more

Elizabeth C. PritzkerPritzker Levine LLP On December 18, 2017, Judge Richard Seeborg of the Northern District of California issued simultaneous orders granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant manufacturers of optical disk drives in the indirect purchaser class proceedings in theOptical Disk Drive MDL, In re Optical Disk Drive Antitrust Litig ., No. 10-md-02143-RS, 2017 WL 6503743 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2017) (“ ODD”).  The court found that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate evidence of injury and causation, as required to proceed… Read more

Abiel GarciaGibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP On November 9, 2017, U.S. District Judge Denise J. Casper granted certification to a group of end payors who allege that they paid higher prices for ulcerative colitis drug Asacol due to a product hop employed by Warner Chilcott and parent company Allergan.  In re Asacol Antitrust Litig., No. 15-cv-12730-DJC, 2017 WL 5196381 (D. Mass. Nov. 9, 2017) (“Asacol”).  The lawsuit revolves around 400-milligram Asacol.  At the suit’s core, plaintiffs allege that Warner Chilcott, knowing… Read more

Sonal Mittal TolmanWilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati On November 17, 2017, Northern District of California District Court Judge Edward J. Davila dismissed the massive multidistrict tracking litigation against Facebook for the third and final time. In re Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD, 2017 WL 5525895 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2017). Judge Davila held the plaintiffs, who accused Facebook of tracking users’ browsing activity after they signed off, failed to identify any contract that prohibited such practices. Plaintiffs alleged that… Read more

David M. GoldsteinOrrick LLP In a decision that is sure to please patent assertion entities, on December 1, 2017, several Intellectual Ventures (IV) companies prevailed on summary judgment on antitrust counterclaims that Capital One asserted in response to a patent infringement suit filed by Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC in the district court in Maryland. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., No. 8:14-cv-00111-PWG, Memorandum and Opinion, ECF No. 686 (D. Md. Dec. 1,… Read more