Antitrust

The NCAA is not entitled to any special immunity from application of the Sherman Act.  The district court properly evaluated the NCAA's rules limiting athletes' compensation under the rule of reason analysis.  At either end of the spectrum of restraints, abbreviated analysis may suffice to show the challenged restraint either is or is not a violation of the Sherman Act. … Read More

In Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937, the Supreme Court held that in the employment context, Bus. & Prof. Code 16600 is to be strictly enforced, prohibiting enforcement of any noncompetition clause except in circumstances that are exempted by B & P Code 16601, 16602 or 16602.5.  However, this case holds that outside the employment context, and… Read More

Notwithstanding  United States v. Paramount Pictures (1948) 334 U.S. 131, which applied a per se test to circuit-dealing contracts in movie theaters, this decision holds that the rule of reason test applies to a non-monopoly claim of circuit-dealing contracts under the Cartwright Act.  Paramount Pictures dealt with a unique market structure which has since vanished from the motion picture industry. … Read More

Reversing the district court's judgment and permanent injunction, this decision finds that Qualcomm's patent licensing practices do not violate the Sherman Act.  The district court erred in finding anticompetitive harm from the effect Qualcomm's licensing practices had on cell phone manufacturersp--a market in which Qualcomm did not compete--rather than on rival chip manufacturers with which Qualcomm did compete.  Qualcomm's practice… Read More

B&P Code 16600 bans any agreement that restrains anyone from engaging in a lawful business or trade.  While the Court has interpreted the section as strictly forbidding any restraint in the employment context, a different rule--the rule of reason--applies to contracts restraining trade outside the employment context. Read More

To properly plead demand futility in a shareholder’s derivative suit, the complaint must allege facts specific to each director, showing that at least half of them could not have exercised disinterested business judgment in responding to a demand; alleging that corporate officers, but not directors, were engaged in an antitrust conspiracy did not suffice. Read More

The act of state doctrine defeated this attempted antitrust suit against a salt production company that was 51% owned by the Mexican government.  Read More

Department of Justice required SABMiller to divest entirely of its domestic beer business as a condition of approving its merger with Anheuser-Busch; so consumers could not maintain suit alleging that the merger would lessen competition in the domestic market. Read More

Although corporations are immune from antitrust liability for conspiracy when their alleged co-conspirator has substantially common ownership, this immunity does not apply when wholly unrelated corporations are alleged to be part of the conspiracy. Read More

The district court properly dismissed this antitrust action because plaintiffs failed to allege facts to support the conclusion that the advertising on bibs worn by golf caddies on professional golf tours constituted a separate market or submarket.  Read More