The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit turns on the interpretation of the Twombly plausibility standard and the application of the Supreme Court’s precedent on pleading standards to antitrust actions at early stages of litigation (Sawstop / Black & Decker)

Divided Fourth Circuit Panel Slices Up Twombly in Table Saw Boycott Suit* Last week, a divided three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit issued a significant decision in a boycott conspiracy case, SD3, LLC v. Black & Decker, No. 14-1746 (4th Cir. Sept. 15, 2015). The suit, at its heart, turns on the interpretation of the Twombly plausibility standard and the application of the Supreme Court’s precedent on pleading standards to antitrust actions at early stages of litigation. The suit involves allegations of a group boycott by a table saw manufacturer, SawStop. SawStop developed a safety feature for a table saw, called “active injury mitigation technology,” that retracts the saw’s blade when it detects contact between the blade and the user. In August 2000, SawStop began showing the

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Authors

  • Siemens (New York)
  • Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler (New York)

Quotation

Deirdre McEvoy, Taylor J. Kirklin, The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit turns on the interpretation of the Twombly plausibility standard and the application of the Supreme Court’s precedent on pleading standards to antitrust actions at early stages of litigation (Sawstop / Black & Decker), 15 September 2015, e-Competitions September 2015, Art. N° 76729

Visites 915

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues