• Sage Chem., Inc. v. Supernus Pharm., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2024-05-27
    Practice Area: Antitrust
    Industry: Manufacturing | Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Burke
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Dominick T. Gattuso, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; W. Gordon Dobie, Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL; Susannah P. Torpey, Winston & Strawn LLP, New York, NY; Robert A. Julian, Baker & Hostetler LLP, San Francisco, CA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Gary W. Lipkin, Michelle C. Streifthau-Livizos, Saul Ewing LLP, Wilmington, DE; Charles O. Monk, II, Jordan D. Rosenfeld, Saul Ewing LLP, Baltimore, MD; Jeffrey S. Robbins, Saul Ewing LLP, Boston, MA; Michael F. Brockmeyer, David S. Shotlander, Haug Partners LLP, Washington, D.C.; Ralph E. Labaton, Aakruti G. Vakharia, Haug Partners LLP, New York, NY; Daniel M. Silver, Alexandra M. Joyce, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Erick J. Stock, Shireen Barday, Joshua Obear, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY; Beth Moskow-Schnoll, Tyler B. Burns, Ballard Spahr LLP, Wilmington, DE; Adam K. Levin, Benjamin Holt, Ilana Kattan, Kaitlyn Golden, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Washington, D.C. for defendants.

    Case Number: 22-1302-CJB

    Plaintiffs adequately pled antitrust claims by alleging various anticompetitive acts by defendants designed to prevent or delay market entry of competing products, which resulted in the failure of plaintiffs' product launch.

  • Int'l Constr. Prod., LLC v. Caterpillar Inc.

    Publication Date: 2024-04-29
    Practice Area: Antitrust
    Industry: E-Commerce | Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Matthew D. Stachel, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Wilmington, DE; William A. Isaacson, Amy J. Mauser, David E. Cole, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Washington, D.C. for plaintiff.
    for defendant: David J. Baldwin, Peter C. McGivney, Berger Harris, Wilmington, DE; Joseph A. Ostoyich, Danielle Morello, Clifford Chance LLP, Washington, D.C.; Paul C. Cuomo, Heather Souder Choi, Adam Dec, Baker Botts LLP, Washington, D.C. for defendants.

    Case Number: 15-108-RGA

    Sherman Act violation claim failed under the rule of reason where plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to define the relevant geographic or product market, but removal of plaintiff's products from a website, which hampered its ability to compete, was sufficient evidence of refusal to deal.

  • United States v. United States Sugar Corp.

    Publication Date: 2022-10-11
    Practice Area: Antitrust
    Industry: Federal Government | Food and Beverage
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Noreika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Laura Hatcher, Shamoor Anis, United States Attorney’s Office, Wilmington, DE; Brian Hanna, Jonathan Y. Mincer, Jenigh Garrett, Jill Ptacek, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Jack Blumenfeld, Brian Egan, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Lawrence Buterman, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY; Amanda Reeves, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC; Elyse M. Greenwald, Latham & Watkins LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Daniel K. Hogan, Daniel C. Kerrick, Hogan McDaniel, Wilmington, DE; Peter J. Schwingler, Stinson LLP, Minneapolis, MN; Kelly E. Farnan, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Amanda L. Wait, Vic Domen, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Washington, DC; Darryl Wade Anderson, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Houston, TX; Christine A. Varney, David R. Marriott, Peter T. Parbur, Timothy G. Cameron, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: 21-1644 (MN)

    Court denied a request by plaintiff to enjoin an acquisition of a sugar company the Government argued would result in a monopoly of the sugar market in the southeastern United States. The court reviewed evidence from trial noting that the markets for industrial consumers were different from retail consumers, thus broadening the base and the market. The court further found that plaintiff's argument was undermined by the fact that they control the sugar supply within the United States.

  • In re Seroquel XR Antitrust Litig.

    Publication Date: 2022-07-19
    Practice Area: Antitrust
    Industry: Pharmaceuticals | Retail | State and Local Government
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Connolly
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Carmella P. Keener, Cooch and Taylor, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Bruce E. Gerstein, Joseph Opper, Kimberly M. Hennings, Daniel Litvin, Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP, New York, NY; Peter R. Kohn, Joseph T. Lukens, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, Philadelphia, PA; David F. Sorensen, Caitlin G. Coslett, Berger Montague PC, Philadelphia, PA; Stuart E. Des Roches, Amanda Hass, Chris Letter, Dan Chiorean, Thomas J. Maas, Odom & Des Roches, LLC, New Orleans, LA; Susan C. Segura, Erin R. Leger, David C. Raphael, Jr., Smith Segura Raphael & Leger, LLP, Alexandria, LA; Russell A. Chorush, Heim Payne & Cho Rush, LLP, Houston, TX; Michael J. Barry, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Wilmington, DE; Robert G. Eisler, Deborah A. Elman, Chad B. Holtzman, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., New York, NY; Sharon K. Robertson, Donna M. Evans, Matthew W. Ruan, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, New York, NY; Michael J. Barry, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Wilmington, DE; Jayne A. Goldstein, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, Media, PA; J. Clayton Athey, Jason Wayne Rigby, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Barry L. Refsin, Alexander J. Egervary, Caitlin V. McHugh, Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller, Philadelphia, PA; Monica L. Kiley, Eric L. Bloom, Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller, Harrisburg, PA; J. Clayton Athey, Jason Wayne Rigby, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Scott E. Perwin, Lauren C. Ravkind, Anna T. Neil, Kenny Nachwalter, P.A., Miami, FL; Heidi M. Silton, Jessica N. Servais, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN; Peter Safirstein, Safirstein Metcalf LLP, New York, NY; Archana Tamoshunas, Taus, Cebulash & Landau, LLP, New York, NY; Lee Albert, Brian D. Brooks, Glancy, Prongay, & Myrray, New York, NY; Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Tiffany Joanne Cramer, Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, Wilmington, DE; Dianne M. Nast, Joseph N. Roda, Michael D. Ford, NastLaw, Philadelphia, PA; Michael L. Roberts, Stephanie E. Smith, Roberts Law Firm US, PC, Little Rock, AR for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Daniel M. Silver, Alexandrea M. Joyce, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE; John E. Schmidtlein, Benjamin M. Greenblum, Colette T. Connor, Thomas S. Fletcher, Akhil K. Gola, Williams & Connolly, Washington, DC; Arthur G. Connolly, III, Alan Richard Silverstein, Connolly Gallagher LLP, Wilmington, DE; Christopher J. Marino, James E. Gallagher, Davis Malm & D'Agostine, P.C., Boston, MA; Jack B. Blumenfeld, Michael J. Flynn, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Stephen J. McIntyre, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Brett J. Williamson, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Newport Beach, CA; Ben Bradshaw, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, DC; John W. Shaw, Karen E. Keller, Nathan Roger Hoeschen, Shaw Keller LLP, Wilmington, DE; Thomas J. Lang, Christina E. Fahmy, Peter M. Boyle, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Washington, DC for defendants.

    Case Number: D69888

    Antitrust claims arising from alleged reverse payment agreements were timely under the statute of limitations where each alleged supracompetitive sale constituted a discrete act that started the limitations period for that sale.

  • Thomson Reuters Enter. Centre GmbH v. ROSS Intelligence Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-05-10
    Practice Area: Antitrust
    Industry: Legal Services | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Michael J. Flynn, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Dale M. Cendali, Joshua L. Simmons, Eric A. Loverro, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY; Daniel E. Laytin, Christa C. Cottrell, Alyssa C. Kalisky, Cameron D. Ginder, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago, IL for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: David E. Moore, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Gabriel M. Ramsey, Warrington Parker, Jacob Canter, Crowell & Moring LLP, San Francisco, CA; Mark A. Klapow, Lisa Kimmel, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, DC for defendant.

    Case Number: D69812

    Tying claims under the Sherman Act and state unfair competition statutes permitted to proceed where there was sufficient evidence that bundled products did constitute separate products serving separate markets and where unilateral action was sufficient to support a restraint of trade claim.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Lancaster County & Berks County Court Rules 2024

    Authors:

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • United States v. U.S. Sugar Corp.

    Publication Date: 2022-02-01
    Practice Area: Antitrust
    Industry: Agriculture | Food and Beverage
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Noreika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Laura D. Hatcher, Chief, Civil Division, Shamoor Anis, United States Attorney’s Office, Wilmington, DE; Brian Hanna, Jonathan Y. Mincer, Jenigh Garrett, Jill Ptacek, United States Department Of Justice, Antitrust Division, Washington, DC for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Brian P. Egan, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Lawrence E. Buterman, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY; Amanda P. Reeves, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC; Elyse M. Greenwald, Latham & Watkins LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Daniel K. Hogan, Daniel C. Kerrick, Hogan McDaniel, Wilmington, DE; Peter J. Schwingler, Stinson LLP, Minneapolis, MN; Kelly E. Farnan, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Amanda L. Wait, Vic Domen, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Washington, DC; Darryl Wade Anderson, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Houston, TX; Christine A. Varney, David R. Marriott, Peter T. Parbur, Timothy G. Cameron, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: D69700

    Court declined to transfer government's Clayton Act suit where the government had filed suit in the state of incorporation of the parties to the challenged transaction, where the corporate parties had also agreed to hear claims arising from their transaction, such that the government's of forum was entitled to substantial deference.

  • NRT Tech. Corp. v. Everi Holdings Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-01-25
    Practice Area: Antitrust
    Industry: Software | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Fallon
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: D69692

    Motion for leave to amend the complaint denied where plaintiffs failed to provide good reason for its delay where plaintiffs were in possession of most of the facts supporting the new allegations and plaintiffs also waited half a year after obtaining additional facts from defendants.

  • United States v. Sabre Corp.

    Publication Date: 2020-04-22
    Practice Area: Antitrust
    Industry: Federal Government | Technology Media and Telecom | Travel and Tourism
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: David C. Weiss, Laura D. Hatcher, Shamoor Anis, United States Dep’t of Justice, Wilmington, DE; Julie S. Elmer, Scott A. Westrich, Sarah P. McDonough, Robert A. Lepore, Aaron Comenetz, Brian E. Hanna, Craig W. Conrath, Dylan M. Carson, Rachel A. Flipse, Michael T. Nash, Jeremy P. Evans, Vittorio Cottafavi, Seth J. Wiener, John A. Holler, Grant A. Bermann and Katherine A. Celeste, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Joseph O. Larkin, Veronica A. Bartholomew, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE; Tara L. Reinhart, Steven C. Sunshine, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Washington, DC; Matthew M. Martino, Michael H. Meni-tove and Evan R. Kreiner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, New York, NY for Sabre defendants. Daniel A. Mason, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Wilmington, DE; Kenneth A. Gallo, Jonathan S. Kanter, Joseph J. Bial and Daniel J. Howley, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Washington, DC for defendants Farelogix Inc. and Sandler Capital Partners V, LP.

    Case Number: D68956

    The government failed to demonstrate a relevant market in this case involving companies that provided airline booking ser-vices, so the court allowed the merger to proceed.

  • Helicopter Helmet, LLC v. Gentex Corp.

    Publication Date: 2019-08-14
    Practice Area: Antitrust
    Industry: Aerospace | Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Judge McKee
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: D68663

    Plaintiff could not, pursuant to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, establish antitrust liability by alleging that it would have had better business performance had defendant not petitioned the government for action.

  • Prescient Med. Holdings, LLC v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings

    Publication Date: 2019-02-27
    Practice Area: Antitrust
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Noreika
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Richard H. Cross, Jr., Cross & Simon, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Daniel W. Tarpey and Matthew M. Showel, Tarpey Wix LLC, Chicago, IL for plaintiff. Raymond J. DiCamillo, Chad Shandler and Katharine L. Mowery, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Steven F. Barley, Marc A. Marinaccio and J. Robert Robertson, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Washington, DC for Laboratory Corp. of America defend-ants.
    for defendant: Jody C. Barillare, Eric Kraeutler, Steven A. Reed, R. Brendan Fee, Zachary M. Johns and Alexandra M. Lastowski, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE and Philadelphia, PA for AmeriHealth de-fendants.

    Case Number: D68476

    Plaintiff lacked standing to assert an antitrust claim and it failed to adequately allege a relevant market.