We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 22

Price restraints no longer per se illegal
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • July 16 2007

On June 28, 2007, the Supreme Court concluded in a 5-4 opinion that arrangements between manufacturers and retailers setting price floors for the resale of products to consumers are not illegal on their face and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis


Realnetworks, Inc, et al v DVD Copy Control Association, Inc, et al
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • January 20 2010

Court grants motion picture studios’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s antitrust claims arising from studios’ refusal to license plaintiff’s product; court holds plaintiff lacks standing to plead an antitrust claim because it failed to prove that it suffered an anti-competitive injury and failed to plead a plausible antitrust conspiracy


Starr, et al. v. Sony BMG Music Entertainment, et al.
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • January 27 2010

Second Circuit holds that the plaintiff class adequately pled violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act against defendant producers and distributors of digital music, where the defendants’ alleged parallel conduct in selling music over the internet plausibly suggested that defendants entered into an agreement to fix prices and to restrain the availability and distribution of music over the internet


Brantley, et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc., et al.
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • October 28 2009

Court dismisses plaintiff consumers’ antitrust action against defendant television networks and their cable and satellite distributors because plaintiffs failed to show that the practice of tying or bundling channels for sale to consumers results in foreclosure of third party competitors


Brantley v. NBC Universal, USCA Ninth Circuit, June 3, 2011
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • June 8 2011

Ninth Circuit holds that plaintiffs, cable and satellite TV subscribers, fail to state an antitrust claim against television programmers and distributors where the complaint alleges bundling of “high demand” and “low demand” channels and alleges injury to consumers, but fails to allege injury to competition


John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Kirtsaeng
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • August 24 2011

Second Circuit affirms judgment in favor of publisher, holding, as a matter of first impression, that the first sale doctrine does not apply to works manufactured outside of the United States


Hart-Scott-Rodino overhaul
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • July 8 2011

As the latest evidence of increased antitrust enforcement, on July 7 the Federal Trade Commission and the antitrust division of the Department of Justice jointly published sweeping changes to Hart-Scott-Rodino rules


Thayil v. Fox Broadcasting
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • February 8 2012

District court dismisses plaintiff’s complaint accusing producers of American Idol and other reality competition shows of stealing his ideas and infringing his copyrights, holding that the allegedly stolen elements were not copyrightable, and that plaintiff’s conclusory allegations did not suffice to state a claim


New FTCDOJ position will require heightened regulatory reporting of pharma, biological and diagnostic licenses
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • October 1 2012

The Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice recently announced revisions to the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act’s premerger notification rules to require enhanced reporting of transactions (including licenses) relating to patents of pharmaceutical, biological and diagnostic products


Redbox Automated Retail LLC v. Universal City Studios LLLP, et al.
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • August 26 2009

Court denies defendant movie studio’s motion for summary judgment on anti-trust claims, holding that plaintiff sufficiently pled a Sherman Act violation by alleging that the studio induced or convinced others; court dismisses tortious interference and copyright misuse claims