Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section

This edition of the Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section of the California Lawyers Association’s E-Briefs includes a recap of the 30th Annual Golden State Institute which was held as a virtual conference on October 27-29, 2020. The program co-chairs were Elizabeth Castillo, (Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy) and Rob McNary, (Crowell & Moring). The program had 6 panels and two networking sessions and was attended by over 300 attorneys, law students and economists. Read more

The Antitrust, UCL and Privacy Section presents the 30th Annual Golden State Institute! Read more

Antitrust enforcement of technology mergers, both high-tech and biotech, has been a hot topic for quite some time. We know that antitrust analysis of these deals may not always be straightforward, and we have questions! Does the analysis of tech deals differ from other industries? Read more

Ready, Set, Action. The latest episode of the Flagship antitrust saga has been released this month! A three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeal, Second District in Los Angeles, reversed the $3.5 million judgment awarded to Flagship Theatres of Palm Desert, LLC (Flagship) against Cinemark USA, Inc. and its subsidiary Century Theatres, Inc. (collectively, Century). (Flagship Theatres of Palm Desert LLC v. Century Theatres Inc. et al. (2020), case B292609 and B299014 (Flagship)) Read more

When selecting lead class counsel in complex class action cases, Rule 23(g)(1)(A) of the Fed Rules of Civ. P. states that the court must consider, among other factors, “counsel’s experience in handling class actions,” “knowledge of applicable law” and ”the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class.” Read more

On July 30, 2020, Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the Northern District of California certified a class of indirect purchasers seeking damages for Sutter Health’s alleged violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Cartwright Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law. Sidibe v. Sutter Health, No. 12-cv-04854-LB, 2020 WL 4368221 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 30, 2020) (“Sidibe II”). Read more

The recent decision out of the Northern District of California in Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 20-cv-5640, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154321 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2020), sheds light on the standard for granting preliminary injunctive relief in antitrust cases. In an August 24, 2020 order, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted in part and denied in part Epic Games, Inc.’s (“Epic”) motion for a temporary restraining order against Apple Inc. (“Apple”). Read more

As many anticipated, the Ninth Circuit reversed Judge Koh’s ruling that Qualcomm, Inc. had an antitrust duty to deal with its rival chip makers. The panel criticized Judge Koh for focusing on harm to downstream original equipment manufacturer (OEM) customers rather than on actual anticompetitive effects in the purportedly restrained chip market and rejected Judge Koh’s reliance on the smallest saleable unit test underlying her conclusion that Qualcomm’s royalty rates were unreasonably high. Read more

This Supreme Court of California case addressed the legal standards that applied when Biogen, Inc. (Biogen) settled a patent dispute with Ixchel related to the use of a compound (DMF) dimethyl fumerate that required Ixchel to terminate an at-will contract it had with Forward Pharma (Forward) under which Ixchel Pharma (Ixchel) and Forward were working together to develop a drug using DMF. Read more

Final regulations to implement the California Consumer Privacy Act were released on August 14, 2020, and are now enforceable. The regulations cleared their final regulatory hurdle – review and approval by the California Office of Administrative Law (OAL) – more than two years after the law originally passed and after several rounds of changes to proposed regulations. The latest round of regulatory changes were made on July 29th, during the midst of the OAL review, but were made public only after the regulations were approved by OAL. Read more