How intellectual property lawsuits get resolved can be critically important to the parties to those lawsuits. The right to sell an allegedly infringing product or service; the price for that product or service; sometimes the very existence of the company: All can be at stake in an intellectual property case. But our judicial system generally... Read more »
A number of important cases regarding the reach of the U.S. antitrust laws to conduct occurring overseas percolated through the courts in 2013. In particular, courts struggled with the meaning and impact of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvement Act, which limits the extraterritorial reach of the Sherman Act. Cases are presently pending in the Second... Read more »
It is the rare legal issue where the ACLU, the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce end up on the same side. But that is currently the situation in a case pending before the federal court of appeals in New York, where these entities and other major corporations have lined up... Read more »
Google Inc. is currently subject to antitrust investigations by state attorneys general in the United States, as well as antitrust authorities in the European Union. Google and its allies have mounted a vigorous public defense, arguing that Google’s activity should be immune from antitrust scrutiny or that imposing a remedy on Google would transform antitrust... Read more »
Appellate briefs were recently filed in the case of U.S. v. AU Optronics Corporation pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which raise issues of critical importance in the prosecution of foreign cartel cases in the U.S.: (1) whether Section 1 of the Sherman Act applies extraterritorially to price-fixing meetings... Read more »
It is rare to see a Robinson-Patman decision these days. However, on July 19, 2013, the Ninth Circuit issued an important Robinson-Patman decision in the case of Gorlick Distribution Centers LLC v. Car Sound Exhaust System Inc., Case No. 10-36083 (9th Cir. July 19, 2013). In this case, the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on... Read more »
DisclaimerThis website is not a solicitation for business. All content on the FedArb website is intended to provide general information about FedArb and an opportunity for interested persons to contact FedArb. The content of this website is not offered as legal advice or legal opinion and it should not be relied upon for any specific situation. FedArb neutrals are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney client relationship is intended. This website is for informational purposes only and does not constitute a complete description of FedArb services. While FedArb endeavors to keep the information updated and correct, FedArb makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the information contained in this website. No guaranty is made of the neutrality of FedArb’s arbitrators and the use of the term “Neutrals” is for descriptive purposes only.