Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
02-17264
|
Jack Russell Terrier Network of Northern California v. American Kennel Club Inc.
National breed club and regional affiliates are not capable of conspiring as separate entities within meaning of Sherman Act. |
Antitrust |
|
Jul. 25, 2005 | |
01-35406
|
MetroNet Services Corporation v. Qwest Corporation
Court need not expand scope of antitrust law that would provide only minimal benefit to consumers. |
Antitrust |
|
Jan. 18, 2005 | |
B163415
|
Leonte v. ACS State and Local Solutions Inc.
Private company that operated automated traffic enforcement system did not violate unfair competition law. |
Antitrust |
|
Jan. 10, 2005 | |
02-16472
|
United States v. LSL Biotechnologies
District court lacks jurisdiction over antitrust action against tomato-seed developer. |
Antitrust |
|
Sep. 28, 2004 | |
H021153
|
DVD Copy Control Assn. Inc. v. Bunner
Plaintiff cannot support inference that its program was trade secret when defendant posted it on internet. |
Antitrust |
|
Jul. 26, 2004 | |
G033116
|
People ex. rel. Lockyer v. Brar
Anti-SLAPP statute specifically exempts actions brought by public prosecutors, including Attorney General. |
Antitrust |
|
Jul. 2, 2004 | |
03-724
|
Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran
Sherman Act does not apply to claim based on adverse effect of price-fixing on foreign market that is independent of adverse effect on domestic market. |
Antitrust |
|
Jun. 21, 2004 | |
02-36057
|
Snake River Valley Electric Assn. v. PacifiCorp
Amendment to state law provides immunity to utility company facing antitrust lawsuit. |
Antitrust |
|
May 10, 2004 | |
02-1290
|
U.S. Postal Service v. Flamingo Industries (USA) Ltd.
Because U.S. Postal Service is part of government, it is not subject to antitrust liability. |
Antitrust |
|
Mar. 2, 2004 | |
01-15963
|
Flamingo Industries Ltd. v. U.S. Postal Servcies
U.S. Postal Service constitutes 'person' under Lanham Act and is not entitled to sovereign immunity from antitrust claims. |
Antitrust |
|
Feb. 26, 2004 | |
02-682
|
Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko
Complaint alleging violations of Telecommunications Act of 1996 does not state claim under Section 2 of Sherman Act. |
Antitrust |
|
Jan. 21, 2004 | |
01-56447
|
Glen Holly Entertainment Inc. v. Tektronix Inc.
Company forced out of business by joint venture of two competitors adequately alleged antitrust injury. |
Antitrust |
|
Oct. 24, 2003 | |
01-17451
|
International Healthcare Management v. The Hawaii Coalition for Health
Consortium to negotiate terms of company's provider agreement does not cause antitrust injury in violation of Sherman Act. |
Antitrust |
|
Jul. 25, 2003 | |
01-56245
|
Bourns Inc. v. Raychem Corp.
Jury instructions on misappropriation claim are harmless error; beginning business does not have standing to assert antitrust action. |
Antitrust |
|
Jul. 22, 2003 | |
01-35406
|
MetroNet Services Corp. v. US West Communications
Reseller of telephone services has demonstrated triable issues of fact sufficient to proceed on its antitrust claims against telephone company. |
Antitrust |
|
Jun. 16, 2003 | |
01-35849
|
Paladin Associates Inc. v. Montana Power Co.
There are no violations of antitrust laws where procompetitive justifications plainly outweigh alleged anticompetitive effects. |
Antitrust |
|
May 20, 2003 | |
01-56199
|
Freeman v. San Diego Association of Realtors
Real estate multiple listing service that charges fixed price to subscribers violates Sherman Act. |
Antitrust |
|
Mar. 18, 2003 | |
01-4109
|
Lantec Inc. v. Novell Inc.
Plaintiff didn't produce sufficient evidence to support inference of conspiracy to monopolize. |
Antitrust |
|
Sep. 22, 2002 | |
01-6067
|
Telecor Communications, Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
Pay phone location owners define market where telephone company's anti-competitive behavior took place. |
Antitrust |
|
Sep. 16, 2002 | |
01-0046
|
Bunker's Glass Co. v. Pilkington plc
Indirect purchaser may bring action to recover damages resulting from alleged price-fixing by manufacturer. |
Antitrust |
|
Apr. 2, 2002 | |
99-56761
|
Lucas Automotive Engineering Inc. v. Bridgestone/Firestone Inc.
Relevant market, for purposes of Clayton Act violation, does not require claimant to establish sub-market to proceed with action. |
Antitrust |
|
Feb. 20, 2002 | |
99-17406
|
Cable Arizona Corp. v. Coxcom Inc.
Apartment owner who grants cable company access to units is not required to provide access to competing cable provider. |
Antitrust |
|
Nov. 30, 2001 | |
B136778
|
Chavez v. Whirlpool Corp.
Manufacturer that demands minimum resale prices does not commit anti-competitive conduct. |
Antitrust |
|
Oct. 29, 2001 | |
00-15101
|
Toscano v. Professional Golfers' Assoc.
No direct evidence supported plaintiff's allegations that Professional Golfers' Association violated Sherman Antitrust Act by conspiring to restrain trade. |
Antitrust |
|
Oct. 4, 2001 | |
00-55046
|
Tanaka v. University of Southern California
Collegiate soccer player's antitrust challenge to intercollegiate athletic association rule fails because of failure to identify relevant market. |
Antitrust |
|
Jul. 25, 2001 | |
S086738
|
Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Company
Prima facie case of antitrust violation required showing that petroleum companies acted collusively and not independently. |
Antitrust |
|
Jul. 12, 2001 | |
00-6047
|
Trigen-Oklahoma City Energy Corp. v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co.
State action doctrine protects company's state regulated electricity sales from federal antitrust liability. |
Antitrust |
|
May 16, 2001 | |
98-4157
|
Huntsman Chemical Corp. v. Holland Plastics Co.
Order |
Antitrust |
|
May 15, 2001 | |
99-35204
|
Snake River Valley Electric Assoc. v. Pacificorp
Idaho's Electronic Supplier Stabilization Act is not state-sponsored restraint of competition that is immune from antitrust scrutiny because it fails two-prong test. |
Antitrust |
|
Apr. 19, 2001 | |
96-15293
|
Image Technical Services Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co.
Monopolist's goal to exclude others from copyrighted work raises rebuttable justification presumption for refusal to deal. |
Antitrust |
|
Apr. 18, 2001 |