The U.S. District Court of Northern California draws a sharp line between two types of sham litigation claims and dismisses the monopolization counterclaims with leave to amend (Surface Supplied/Kirby Morgan Dive)

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. The Court found a number of defects in 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

Author

  • Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe (San Francisco)

Quotation

Howard M. Ullman, The U.S. District Court of Northern California draws a sharp line between two types of sham litigation claims and dismisses the monopolization counterclaims with leave to amend (Surface Supplied/Kirby Morgan Dive), 3 October 2013, e-Competitions Bulletin US Private Enforcement, Art. N° 57720

Visites 104

All issues

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