Howard Ullman, of counsel in the San Francisco office, is a member of the Litigation Group. He focuses his practice on antitrust, trade regulation and unfair competition issues. He has extensive experience advising on distribution law and distribution system issues (including pricing issues, non-price restraints and dealer termination issues). He routinely addresses and counsels on the antitrust / intellectual property interface. Mr. Ullman represents Nanya Technology Corporation and Nanya Technology Corporation USA in the national DRAM antitrust price-fixing cases. He has also worked on antitrust cases for PG&E Corporation, Equifax, One Technologies, and a number of other companies. He regularly counsels companies on competition issues, including Robinson-Patman Act issues and market concentration issues. He has worked on a number of Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code Section 17200 (unfair competition) litigations. He has also worked on a number of antitrust-healthcare related matters.
104
SCOTUS Holds Natural Gas Act Does Not Preempt State Law Antitrust Claims* In Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., Case No. 13-271 (Apr. 21, 2015), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Natural Gas Act did not preempt retail customers’ state law antitrust claims against interstate gas pipeline operators (...)
85
Sixth Circuit Applies Cost Screen to Tying by Differential Pricing* In Collins Inkjet Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., No. 14-3306 (6th Cir. March 16, 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that differential pricing – charging more for one product when the customer does not also (...)
93
Northern District of California Addresses Functional Discounts, Price Discrimination Claims* In Mathew Enterprise, Inc. v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95522 (N.D. Cal. July 11, 2014) (Freeman, J.), the court dismissed certain Robinson-Patman Act price discrimination claims and (...)
176
Basketball, Surreptitious Recordings, and Antitrust* Donald Sterling — yes, that Donald Sterling — filed an antitrust lawsuit a few days ago against the National Basketball Association. You can download a copy here: Sterling Antitrust Complaint. It’s not clear if the complaint has now been (...)
148
Northern District of California Raises the Bar on Exclusive Dealing Claims* In PNY Technologies, Inc. v. SanDisk Corp., Case No. C-11-04689 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2014) (Orrick, J.), the court dismissed PNY’s exclusive dealing and attempted monopolization claims. I previously covered the case (...)
57
A Rare Challenge to a Class Action Settlement . . . From a Named Plaintiff* One of the named class plaintiffs in the high-tech employee antitrust case has filed an objection to the proposed class settlement. The plaintiff, Mr. Michael Devine, analogized the approximately $300 million (...)
79
Digital Content Producers (Still) Lack Antitrust Standing to Sue Wireless Carriers Over MMS* In a prior post, I covered the district court’s decision in Davis v. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. There, the Central District of California dismissed antitrust claims against various wireless (...)
362
U.S. Supreme Court to Decide When Professional Licensing Bodies Have Antitrust Immunity* The state action immunity doctrine shields private actors from antitrust liability if their activities are actively supervised by a state. But arms of the state itself generally don’t have to satisfy the (...)
66
Lithium Ion Batteries Court Addresses Illinois Brick Exception, Finds Standing for Certain Indirect Purchasers of Component Products* In In re: Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7516 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2014) (Gonzalez Rogers, J.), the Northern District of (...)
92
Another Example of Why You Should Follow the “New York Times” Rule — the Bazaarvoice Decision* Have you heard of the New York Times rule? The rule is: don’t write something down in a business communication unless you’re comfortable with its text appearing in the New York Times. If everyone followed (...)
117
“Anti-Patent Troll” Fails to Secure Dismissal of Amended Antitrust Complaint* Back in January, I covered the case of Cascades Computer Innovation LLC v. RPX Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10526 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2013), where Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers dismissed – with leave to amend – Cascades’ (...)
180
Trademark Misuse Is ^Almost^ Never an Antitrust Injury* Trademarks are commonly thought to convey no market power. In RJ Machine Co. v. Canada Pipeline Accessories Co., Case No. 1:13-cv-00579-SS (W.D. Tex. Nov. 22, 2013) (Sparks, J.), the court dismissed antitrust claims predicated upon (...)
86
Injunctive Relief, but not Damages Class, Certified in NCAA Student-Athlete Litigation* In In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160739 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2013) (Wilken, J.)., the Court certified a class of current and former (...)
92
A Useful Reminder About Sham Litigation as Exclusionary Conduct* In Surface Supplied, Inc. v. Kirby Morgan Dive Systems, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143478 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2013) (Chesney, J.), the Court dismissed attempted monopolization and monopolization counterclaims with leave to amend. (...)
129
Allegations of Harm to Competition Caused by Multiple Defendants Can’t be Aggregated* Earlier this year, I covered the case of Orchard Supply Hardware LLC v. Home Depot USA, Inc. . On September 19, 2013, the court (the Northern District of California) issued its decision on defendants’ motion (...)
184
If Your Allegations Don’t Establish a Price Effect, You May Lack Antitrust Standing* In Somers v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 11-16896 (9th Cir. Sept. 3, 2013), the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a putative class action against Apple, Inc., alleging antitrust violations in (...)
196
Single-Brand Market Claims Are Not Dead* Modern antitrust law’s focus on inter-brand competition has made it much more difficult to plead and prove single-brand market claims. The law’s concern with inter-brand competition is so strong that some observers have all but written off such claims as (...)
206
Why FTC v. Actavis Won’t Shift the Border Between IP and Antitrust Law* The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., No. 12-416, ___ U.S. ___ (2013), has generated a lot of commentary recently. Some articles have suggested that the decision may expose certain (...)
48
Is the California Unfair Practices Act a Free Pass on Motions to Dismiss?* Probably not, but UPA claims can be tough to defeat at the motion to dismiss stage. Witness Rheumatology Diagnostics Laboratory, Inc. v. Aetna, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151128 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2013) (Orrick, J.), (...)
86
Can An “Anti-Patent Troll” Be a Monopsonist or a Section 1 Conspirator?* A recent interesting case suggests that “anti-patent trolls” may in theory face antitrust liability. In Cascades Computer Innovation LLC v. RPX Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10526 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2013), Judge Yvonne (...)
363
Northern District of California Reiterates That You Can Monopolize a Technology Market* In Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Case No. 11-CV-01846 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2012) (Koh, J.), a patent case, the court refused to dismiss Apple’s counterclaims, including a Sherman Act § 2 (...)
68 rue Amelot
106 West 32nd Street, Suite 144
New York, NY, 10001, USA
