Intel uses Supreme Court Comcast ruling in its own antitrust case
The Supreme Court issued its decision in Comcast v. Behrend just last week, but Intel Corp. has already used the ruling to defend itself in its own long-running antitrust suit.
April 03, 2013 at 08:46 AM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The Supreme Court issued its decision in Comcast v. Behrend just last week, but Intel Corp. has already used the ruling to defend itself in its own long-running antitrust suit.
The Comcast decision, which the high court issued on March 27, found that a group of Philadelphia-area cable subscribers should not have been allowed to sue as a group because they did not adequately show how damages could be calculated on a class-wide basis.
Intel, which is mired in allegations that it engaged in anticompetitive practices when marketing its microprocessors, filed court papers citing Comcast just two days after the high court's ruling, arguing that the proposed class of consumers in its own case has not introduced consistent theories for liability and damages.
Some legal experts, however, say that Comcast was a narrow ruling, meant to apply only to the facts of that particular case, Thomson Reuters reports.
Intel has already reached a consent decree with the Federal Trade Commission and paid a fine to the European Commission over the antitrust allegations. The class action suit in question was filed in 2005. In July 2010, a special master in the case recommended that the plaintiffs' motion be denied, but a judge resurrected the suit last fall when he ordered additional briefing on class certification. An evidentiary hearing is slated for July.
Read more about class-action suits on InsideCounsel:
NCAA opposes class cert in antitrust suit
Court decertifies class action by Domino's drivers
Supreme Court's Amgen decision makes it easier for shareholders to bring class actions
Citing Dukes, 9th Circuit overturns class certification in wage and hour case
Litigation: Spotting potential constitutional challenges to class actions
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllApple Disputes 'Efforts to Manufacture' Imaging Sensor Claims Against iPhone 15 Technology
Coinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
- 1$15K Family Vacation Turned 'Colossal Nightmare': Lawsuit Filed Against Vail Ski Resorts
- 2Prepare Your Entries! The California Legal Awards Have a New, February Deadline
- 3DOJ Files Antitrust Suit to Block Amex GBT's Acquisition of Competitor
- 4K&L Gates Sheds Space, but Will Stay in Flagship Pittsburgh Office After Lease Renewal
- 5US Soccer Monopoly Trial Set to Kick Off in Brooklyn Federal Court
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250