Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Corporate & Securities Law Blogs -> Antitrust Commentary
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Corporate & Securities Law
: Antitrust CommentaryThe Second and Ninth Circuits Uphold Antitrust Immunity in Three Recent Cases
By Matthew S. Wild
In January 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a district decision granting a motion to dismiss an action alleging that defendants “conspired to influence the FCC.” The Court held that such activity cannot give rise to antitrust liability under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. Kahn v. iBiquity Digital Corp., No. 07-0475-cv, 2009 WL 102810 (2d Cir. Jan. 15, 2009). That doctrine provides immunity for, among other things, lobbying the government including agencies which is precisely what the defendants were alleged to have done. In another case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld application of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine in Kaiser Health Foundation, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Nos. 06-55687, 06-55748, 2009 WL 69269 (Jan. 13, 2009). This time defendant’s commencement of litigation against generic drug manufacturers was protected. The Noerr-Pennington doctrine also shields litigation as a basis for antitrust liability unless it is “sham” litigation. The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the monopolization claims based on Abbott’s seventeen patent infringement lawsuits against generic drug manufacturers noting that it could hardly be sham litigation when Abbott prevailed in seven of them and Abbott “had a plausible argument on which it could have prevailed” in the other ten suits. Id. at *13. In Wolfe v. City of Anaheim, No. 07-56031, 2008 WL 542079 (9th Cir. Dec. 31, 2008), the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal on summary judgment based on the Local Government Antitrust Act of 1984, 15 U.S.C. section 35(a). That statute immunizes municipalities from antitrust damages. Plaintiff had sought to recover damages from the City of Anaheim for alleged wrongful denial of a taxicab franchise under, inter alia, the Sherman Act. The statute clearly precluded such liability.
Full post as published by Antitrust Commentary on February 17, 2009 (boomark / email).
Unwed Fathers' Rights in Adoption
Landmark Cases in Adoption Law Shape Law with respect to Unwed Fathers
Salmonella Found in Tomotoes
57 Reported Cases in New Mexico and Texas
ConAgra Peanut Butter
Hundreds of Salmonella Cases Settled
Mississippi Antitrust
Costs Microsoft $100 Million
MasterCard
settles antitrust lawsuit with Amex for $1.8 billion
Visa, MasterCard
Antitrust with Discover Settled for $2.75 Billion
Expeditors International of Washington, Inc.
alleging freight forwarding antitrust.

Four new CAFA opinions from the federal appellate courts
Extended sentence review discussions in Sixth and Ninth Circuits
Ninth makes absolute immunity issue as clear as day
Clerk Applicants Who Know Immigration Law:
En Banc Ninth Revisits Online Immunity Case
Largest Antitrust Case Hits the Big Screen in September









