US Supreme Court

Anticompetitive practices

The US Supreme Court dismisses an appeal brought by the US Government and a number of US States regarding a two-sided platform (American Express)
King & Wood Mallesons (Melbourne)
US REGULATORS’ SWIPE AT AMEX DECLINED BY SUPREME COURT* On 25 June 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States dismissed an appeal brought by the US Government and a number of US States against credit-card provider American Express (Amex) for alleged anti-competitive conduct in violation of (...)

The US Supreme Court rejects Government antitrust challenge against anti steering provisions of a credit-card network company (American Express)
Weil, Gotshal & Manges (Washington)
,
Weil, Gotshal & Manges (Washington)
Supreme Court Rejects Government Antitrust Challenge to American Express Antisteering Provisions* In a long-awaited decision, a closely divided Supreme Court ruled in favor of American Express (“Amex”), ending a highly publicized government challenge that has spanned nearly a decade. Writing for (...)

The US Supreme Court reviews the a decision from the Court of Appeals on standing in antitrust cases (Visa / Mastercard)
Wolters Kluwer (Riverwoods)
Supreme Court Agrees to Consider Sufficiency of Antitrust Conspiracy Allegations in the Context of Business Associations*Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court wrapped up its regular business for the October 2015 term, but not before deciding to put an antitrust case on the docket for the next term. (...)

Dominance

The US Supreme Court finds that there was no abuse of dominance in a dominant firm’s requirements against competitors because the market is a two-sided platform (American Express)
Economists Incorporated (San Francisco)
The Supreme Court’s American Express Decision – Two-sided Platforms and Harm to Consumers* The Supreme Court determined, in its June 2018 decision, that American Express (“Amex”) did not violate the antitrust laws by requiring merchants to refrain from encouraging patrons at the point of sale to (...)

Mergers

The US Supreme Court of Delaware affirms termination of merger agreement due to the inability of a party to deliver a necessary tax opinion (Energy Transfer / Williams)
White & Case (New York)
,
White & Case (New York)
Resolving a dispute surrounding one of the largest M&A deals of 2015, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Delaware Chancery Court’s decision allowing Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. to terminate its proposed acquisition of The Williams Companies, Inc. due to the inability of Energy (...)

Procedures

The US Supreme Court issues a decision limiting the circumstances under which a federal agency may be compelled to disclose the confidential information received by the agency, from a private party (Food Marketing Institute / Argus Leader Media)
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton (Washington)
,
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton (Washington)
,
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton (Washington)
On June 24, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an important decision limiting the circumstances under which a federal agency may be compelled to disclose “confidential” information the agency received from a private party, and which the agency seeks to withhold under the Freedom (...)

The US Supreme Court rejects an attempt to block consumer claims against a big tech company under the indirect-purchaser rule (Apple / Pepper)
Jones Day (Silicon Valley)
,
Jones Day (Houston)
,
Jones Day (Los Angeles)
This article has been nominated for the 2020 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. In May 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision in Apple v. Pepper, one of the Court’s most significant antitrust rulings of the last several years. In a (...)

The U.S. Supreme Court rejects an attempt to block consumer claims against a big tech company under indirect purchaser rule (Apple / Pepper)
Constantine Cannon (New York)
Apple v. Pepper: Supreme Court Rejects Attempt to Block Consumer Claims Under Indirect-Purchaser Rule* The Supreme Court on Monday issued a much-anticipated decision in the Apple v. Pepper case, where iPhone owners are accusing Apple of monopolizing the retail market for iOS applications, or (...)

The US Supreme Court holds that the claims of consumers purchasing apps from a big tech app store may proceed as they are direct purchasers of the big tech company (Apple / Pepper)
Covington & Burling (Washington)
,
Covington & Burling (Washington)
,
Covington & Burling (Washington)
This article has been nominated for the 2020 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. Appellate and Supreme Court On May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court (“the Court”) announced its 5-4 decision in Apple, Inc. v. Pepper, permitting iPhone users to (...)

The US Supreme Court hears oral arguments to determine whether iPhone App Store customers are Apple direct purchasers in order to pursue the Big Tech monopoly claims (Apple / Pepper)
Wolters Kluwer (Chicago)
Will High Court allow consumers to pursue Apple Monopoly claims?* The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on November 26 in a suit alleging that the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that iPhone App Store customers were direct purchasers of those apps and had standing to sue Apple for the (...)

The US Supreme Court accepts a claim as the opportunity to revisit its rules on antitrust claims by indirect purchaser (Apple / Pepper)
Clifford Chance (Washington D.C.)
On June 18, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted Apple’s petition for certiorari in Apple Inc. v. Pepper, appealing the Ninth Circuit’s decision that Apple is, by contract, the exclusive distributor of iPhone applications (“apps”) through the online Apple App Store platform, from which consumers (...)

The US Supreme Court states that a federal court is not bound by the official interpretation of the foreign law even if it is relevant (Animal science products / Hebei welcome pharmaceutical)
Wolters Kluwer (Riverwoods)
Supreme Court Clarifies Deference Owed a Foreign Government* In a decision that will have a significant impact on antitrust enforcement, particularly private damages actions against international cartels, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled that a federal court considering a case in which foreign (...)

The US Supreme Court holds that federal courts should accord respectful consideration to foreign government submissions when analyzing comity issues but are not bound by them (Animal Science products / Hebei welcome pharmaceutical)
Crowell & Moring (Washington)
,
McDermott Will & Emery (Washington)
Supreme Court Clarifies Principles of International Comity in Vitamin C Ruling* Alert: The Supreme Court clarified the principles of international comity this week in a ruling pertaining to the long-running vitamin C antitrust class action litigation. International comity is the recognition a (...)

The US Supreme Court rules, in relation to a class action for conspiracy to fix vitamin prices, that federal courts determining foreign law are not bound by the foreign government’s own interpretation of that law (Animal Science products / Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical)
Norton Rose Fulbright (New York)
,
Norton Rose Fulbright (Houston)
,
Norton Rose Fulbright (Houston)
This article has been nominated for the 2019 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. In an opinion issued on June 14, 2018, the United States Supreme Court addressed the effect U.S. courts should give to a foreign government’s interpretation of its (...)

The US Supreme Court says that judges who determine foreign law in federal courts are not strictly bound by foreign government’s statements (Animal Science Products / Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical)
Bona Law (San Diego)
In an antitrust case deciding a non-antitrust-specific issue, the US Supreme Court held in Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co.(the Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation) that to determine foreign law in federal courts, judges are not strictly bound by that foreign (...)

The US Supreme Court holds that patentees extinguishes patents rights on a product once it makes a sale of it (Impression Products / Lexmark International)
Crowell & Moring (Washington)
Reversing long-standing Federal Circuit precedent, the United States Supreme Court has now held that a patentee extinguishes its patent rights on a product upon its sale of that product, regardless of (1) whether the patentee placed a restriction on the sale (prohibiting reuse or resale), or (...)

All issues

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