The Court of Justice of the European Union has now delivered its judgment in the Deutsche Bahn1 case. This case concerns important practical principles which govern the conduct of European Commission dawn raids (on-the-spot surprise inspections used to investigate possible infringements of the EU competition rules). In particular, the case focusses on what inspectors can do with documents that that they have found during an inspection which do not relate to the subject matter of their inspection, but indicate separate unrelated anti-competitive behaviour.
Business should review their dawn raid procedures to ensure that they reflect the best practice established by this judgment, in particula [...]
Finding a unifying theory to explain (almost) all the decisions of the Supreme Court in a substantive area can be a difficult task. Alden Abbott and Thom Lambert’s new article accomplishes it for the antitrust decisions of the Roberts Court. They contend that these opinions can be seen as the Court implementing Professor (now Judge) Easterbrook’s seminal 1984 article The Limits of Antitrust. By comparison, the authors believe that the enforcement agencies in the same time period have shown less deference to any such limits. While that conflict might portend future difficulties for the agencies in front of the Court, the one acknowledged exception to the theory was a big win for the [...]
UPDATE: On June 15, the Court denied review in Hsiung v. U.S., Dkt. 14-1121, and Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., Dkt. 14-1122. Apparently, Dow Chemical Co. v. Industrial Polymers, Inc., Dkt. 14-1091, remains pending. The parties filed a joint motion to hold the petition in abeyance before release of the Supreme Court Order List, and the motion was subsequently withdrawn.
On June 11, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to consider whether to grant review in three antitrust cases. We could know as early as next Monday the fate of the petitions for certiorari.
Two of the petitions question the application of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act to an international cart [...]
The Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently issued a business review letter stating that it would not challenge the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.’s (IEEE) proposed revisions to its patent policy. These patent policy revisions seek to address the “wide divergence” in expectations between holders of patents essential to an IEEE standard and the market participants seeking to implement such standards.
The DOJ’s response to the revisions continues the current trend in U.S. law limiting the rights of patent holders that make reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) rate commitments as part of the standard-setting process. The DOJ emphasized th [...]
In a decision that’s received relatively little attention, a divided U.S. Supreme Court earlier this week held that the Natural Gas Act (NGA) did not “field” preempt state law antitrust claims raised by large retail buyers of natural gas seeking damages from pipelines for their purported price manipulation. Rejected was the pipelines’ argument that the claims fell within the field preempted by the NGA—“the field of matters relating to wholesale sales and transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce.” The decision could encourage antitrust lawsuits in areas where preemption concerns might have made antitrust plaintiffs otherwise reluctant.
While the Court’s seven-to-two de [...]
On 20 April 2015, the Dutch competition authority ACM published Guidelines on its enforcement priorities with respect to vertical restraints. The document contains a number of case studies intended to illustrate the types of cases that the ACM would or would not consider priorities for its enforcement. One case study is closely modelled on the Australian Tooltechnic case, in which the ACCC authorised the use of RPM. The Dutch authority implicitly endorses the ACCC’s evaluation of this case.
In the Tooltechnic case, decided in December 2014, Australia’s Competition and Consumer Commission (“the ACCC”) granted authorisation, subject to some monitoring requirements, to Tooltechnic [...]
The FTC has notched two Supreme Court wins in recent years to narrow the state action exemption. But elements of those two cases might best be seen as evidence that the FTC is losing the broader fight: increasing antitrust compliance by convincing non-experts of the wisdom of antitrust’s principles.
Here’s a quick refresher on the two cases in question:
In January 2015 the European Commission announced its intention to appeal a judgment of the Belgian Commercial Court which dismissed the Commission’s claim for €6 million of damages against Otis, KONE, Schindler and ThyssenKrupp. The Court’s decision illuminates the importance of changes brought about by the recently implemented Damages Directive.
Background On 27 February 2007 the European Commission (“EC”) fined four manufacturers of elevators and escalators €992 million.
It found that Otis, Schindler, KONE and ThyssenKrupp were involved in four separate cartels in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. From 1995 to 2005 the companies rigged contracts bids for instal [...]
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked, in parallel petitions, to resolve a split between the Seventh Circuit and the Ninth Circuit on the application of the federal antitrust laws to a conspiracy to fix prices of thin-film transistor-liquid crystal display (TFT-LCD) panels. The petitions provide an excellent opportunity for the High Court to offer needed guidance on the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (FTAIA), which the Court last took up just over a decade ago in F. Hoffmann-LaRoche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A., 542 U.S. 155, 2004-1 Trade Cases ¶74,448.
In a petition for certiorari filed on March 16, Taiwanese electronics manufacturer AU Optronics Corporation, two of its former of [...]
It is not uncommon, where a multi-party infringement of competition law has been established and sanctioned by a competition authority for some, but not all, of the addressees of the authority’s decision to appeal that decision. Those appeals can be against the finding of infringement, whether in whole or part, and/or the penalty imposed. Where those appeals are successful, non-appealing parties may then wish to themselves challenge the finding of infringement and/or the penalty, availing of the judgments already handed down in favour of their co-cartellists or co-infringers of competition law.
In a series of judgments, concerning decisions by the Office of Fair Trading (“OFT”) in [...]