Applied Antitrust Law

Dale Collins
NYU School of Law
Georgetown University Law Center

NB: "±" indicates that the hyperlink will take you to another site.

 

Home page
Topical index
Case studies index

19. IP/antitrust interface

 

21. NPVR

 

 

20. Exclusive Contracts

 

Reading and class notes
Significant precedents
Simple contractual exclusive dealing
Dentsply Int'l Inc.
Reference materials
Case studies

 
Primary Materials
Supplemental Materials

Reading and Class Notes

Reading and class notes

Unit 20 reading materials

 

Significant Precedents

   

Standard Fashion Co. v. Magrane-Houston Co., 258 U.S. 346 (1922)

Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 337 U.S. 293 (1949) (Standard Stations)

Tampa Elec. Co. v. Nashville Coal Co., 365 U.S. 320 (1961) (± Oyez)

Barry Wright Corp. v. ITT Grinnell Corp., 724 F.2d 227 (1st Cir. 1983)

Jefferson Parish Hosp. Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2, 32 (1984) (O'Connor, J., concurring in judgment) (analyzing arrangement as an exclusive dealing arrangement)

DOJ Section 2 Report

U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Competition and Monopoly: Single-Firm Conduct under Section 2 of the Sherman Act (issued by the Bush administration on Sept. 11, 2008) (withdrawn by the Obama administration on May 11, 2009).

Chapter 8: Exclusive Dealing

 

Simple Contractual Exclusive Dealing

Deborah Heart

Opinion, Deborah Heart & Lung Ctr. v. Virtua Health, Inc., No. 15-2032 (3d Cir. 2016) (reported at 833 F.3d 399)

Docket sheet (downloaded Oct. 22, 2016)

Oral argument (Feb. 10, 2016)

 

PNY Technologies

Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action in
Third Amended Complaint, PNY Techs., Inc. v. SanDisk Corp.
,
No. 11-cv-04689-WHO (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2014) (reported at 2014 WL 2987322)

Third Amended Complaint for Antitrust Violations; Declaratory Relief; and Unfair Competition, PNY Techs., Inc. v. SanDisk Corp., No. 11-cv-04689-WHO (N.D. Cal. filed June 11, 2014) (redacted public version) (original complaint filed Sept. 21, 2011)

Docket sheet (downloaded Oct. 22, 2016)

Notice of Settlement and Stipulated Request for Dismissal with Prejudice (Sept. 10, 2014)

Order Dismissing this Case with Prejudice (Sept. 18, 2014)

Dentsply Int'l Inc.

Preemptive challenge to DOJ

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Dentsply Int'l Inc. v. Antitrust Division, CA 98-693 (D. Del. filed Dec. 10, 1998)

Docket sheet (downloaded Jan. 23, 2009)

Motion by Antitrust Division with Proposed Order to Dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (Jan. 5, 1999) (not available)

Motion to dismiss

Brief in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction (Jan. 5, 1999)

Notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice (entered Jan. 21, 1999) (not available)

 
DOJ challenge

Complaint, United States v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc., Civ. A. 99-005-SLR (D. Del. filed Jan. 5, 1999)

Docket sheet

± DOJ web page

Motion for summary judgment
 

United States v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc., 2001-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 73,247, 2001 WL 624807 (D. Del. Mar. 30, 2001) (rejecting Dentsply's motion for summary judgment and deciding various questions in companion private antitrust case).

Opinion

Opinion (D. Del Aug. 8, 2003) (in favor of defendant). Reported as United States v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc., 277 F. Supp. 2d 387 (D. Del. 2003), rev'd, 399 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 2005)

 
Appeal

Opinion (reversing judgment in favor of defendant) (reported as United States v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc., 399 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. Feb. 24, 2005))

Brief for the United States

Brief for Defendant-Appellee Dentsply International, Inc.

Reply Brief For The United States

On remand

District Court final judgment for plaintiff pursuant to Third Circuit mandate (and ordering injunctive relief) (reported as United States v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc., No. Civ. A. 99-005(SLR), 2006 WL 2612167 (D. Del. Apr. 26, 2006))

 
Follow-on private actions

 

Jersey Dental Labs. v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc., No. 01-267-SLR (D. Del. Dec 19, 2001) (reported at 180 F. Supp. 2d 541) (docket sheet)

Opinion, Howard Hess Dental Labs. Inc. v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc., No. 04-1979 (3d Cir. Sept. 21, 2005) (Hess 1) (reported at 424 F.3d 363)

Amended Class Action Complaint, Jersey Dental Labs. v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc., No. 01-267-SLR (D. Del. Oct. 10, 2006)

Memorandum Opinion, Howard Hess Dental Labs., Inc. v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc., Nos. 99-255 & 01-267 (D. Del. Sept. 16, 2007) (Hess 2) (reported at 516 F. Supp. 2d 324) (order)

Plaintiffs' Motion Requesting Certification of the Dismissals of Plaintiffs' Exclusive Dealing Claims, Pursuant to Rule 54(b) or 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), and for a Stay of Proceedings During the Pendency of Any Appeal (Oct. 26, 2007)

Plaintiffs’ Brief in Support of their Motion Requesting Certification of the Court’s Order Dismissing Plaintiffs’ Exclusive Dealing Claims, Pursuant to Rule 54(b) or 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), and for a Stay of Proceedings During the Pendency of Any Appeal (Oct. 26, 2007)

Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion Requesting Certification of the Court’s Order Dismissing Plaintiffs’ Exclusive Dealing Claims, Pursuant to Rule 54(b) or 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (Nov. 13, 2007)

Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of their Motion Requesting Certification of the Court’s Order Dismissing Plaintiffs’ Exclusive Dealing Claims, Pursuant to Rule 54(b) or 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), and for a Stay of Proceedings During the Pendency of Any Appeal (Nov. 26, 2007)

Stipulation and Proposed Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, Regarding Certain Claims and Requests for Relief, Howard Hess Dental Labs., Inc. v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc., No. 99-255 (D. Del. filed __, 2007)

Memorandum Opinion, Howard Hess Dental Labs., Inc. v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc., Nos. 99-255 & 01-267 (D. Del. Jan. 8, 2008) (Hess 3) (granting motion for certificate of appealability) (reported at 2008 WL 114354)

Stipulation and Proposed Order Amending the Court’s Prior Memorandum Opinion and Order to Make their Dismissal of Counts II, III, IV and V a Final Judgment, Pursuant to Rule 54(B) (Jan. 31, 2008)

Opinion, Howard Hess Dental Labs. Inc. v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc., No. 08-1693 (3d Cir. Apr. 16, 2010) (Hess 4) (reported at 602 F.3d 237)

Stipulation Dismissing Jersey Dental and Waiving All Costs Taxable in Hess, Jersey Dental and/or Any Related Appeal (filed July 6, 2010)

Significant precedents

 

 
Related cases

 

Complaint, Transitions Optical, Inc., Dkt. No. C-___ (F.T.C. filed Mar. 3, 2010) (news release) (industry structure illustration)

Agreement Containing Consent Order
Decision and Order
Analysis To Aid Public Comment

Commentary
 

± Robert B. Kulick, Beyond Naked Exclusion: Exclusive Dealing after Dentsply (Oct. 2013).

Michael L. Katz, Exclusive Dealing and Antitrust Exclusion: U.S. v. Dentsply (2005), in The Antitrust Revolution 389 (John E. Kwoka, Jr. & Lawrence J. White eds., 5th ed. 2009).

Lovenox

District Court

Complaint, Eisai, Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC, No. 3:08-cv-04168-MLC-DEA (D.N.J. filed Aug. 18, 2008)

Docket sheet (downloaded Sept. 2, 2016)

Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability Issues (June 3, 2013)

Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability Issues (June 6, 2013) (redacted)

Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability Issues (July 3, 2013)

Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability Issues (Aug. 14, 2013)

Memorandum Opinion (Mar. 28, 2014) (granting defednants' motion for summary judgment)

Order (Apr. 4, 2014)

Notice of Appeal (Apr. 23, 2014)

Third Circuit

Eisai, Inc. v. Sanofi Aventis U.S., LLC, No. 14-2017 (3d Cir. docketed Apr. 28, 2014)

Docket sheet (downloaded Sept. 2, 2016)

Redacted Brief for Plaintiff-Appellant (July 30, 2014)

Redacted Brief of Appellees Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC and Sanofi US Services Inc. in Opposition to Appeal by Eisai Inc. (Oct. 2, 2014)

Redacted Reply Brief for Plaintiff-Appellant (Nov. 12, 2014)

Argued (Jan. 13, 2015) (± audio)

Opinion, Eisai, Inc. v. Sanofi Aventis U.S., LLC, No. 14-2017 (3d Cir. May 4, 2016) (reported at 821 F.3d 394)

Judgment (May 4, 2016)

Sur Petition for Rehearing (June 8, 2015)

Mandate (June 6, 2016)

Reference Materials

Recent enforcement actions

In re Transitions Optical, Inc., Dkt. No. C-4288 (F.T.C. Apr. 27, 2010) (final consent order)

Complaint (Mar. 3, 2010)
Agreement Containing Consent Order (Mar. 3, 2010)
Analysis To Aid Public Comment (Mar. 3, 2010)
News Release (Mar. 3, 2010) (accompanying illustration)
± FTC web site

Economics

± Ran Jing & Ralph A. Winter, Exclusionary Contracts (Oct. 7, 2013), forthcoming in the Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization.

± J. Mark Ramseyer & Eric B. Rasmusen, Exclusive Dealing: Before Bork, and Beyond (Oct. 6, 2013).

± John Asker & Heski Bar-Isaac, Raising Retailers’ Profits: On Vertical Practices and the Exclusion of Rivals (Mar. 4, 2013), final version at 104 Am. Econ. Rev. 672 (2014).

± Linda Gratz & Markus Reisinger, On the Competition Enhancing Effects of Exclusive Dealing Contracts (Feb. 2013).

± Jürgen Eichberger & Frank Mueller-Langer, On the Welfare Effects of Exclusive Distribution Arrangements (May 24, 2012).

± Herbert J., Hovenkamp, Quasi Exclusive Dealing (Sept. 2011).

± Laura Nurski & Frank Verbovenz, Exclusive Dealing as a Barrier to Entry? Evidence from Automobiles (Dec. 2011).

± Joachim Klein & Hans Zenger, Predatory Exclusive Dealing (Mar. 23, 2010).

± Benjamin Klein & Kevin M. Murphy, Exclusive Dealing Intensifies Competition for Distribution, 75 Antitrust L.J. 433 (2008).

± Hans Zenger, When Does Exclusive Dealing Intensify Competition for Distribution? Comment on Klein and Murphy, 77 Antitrust L.J. 2005 (2010).

± Alden F. Abbott & Joshua D. Wright, Antitrust Analysis of Tying Arrangements and Exclusive Dealing (George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 08-37, 2008), final version at Antitrust Law and Economics (Keith N. Hylton ed. 2010).

± Leslie M. Marx & Greg Shaffer, Upfront Payments and Exclusion in Downstream Markets, 38 RAND J. Econ. 823 (2007).

± Patrick Rey & Michael D. Whinston, Does Retailer Power Lead to Exclusion? (Feb. 2011).

± Patrick Rey & Jean Tirole, A Primer on Foreclosure, in 3 Handbook of Industrial Economics 2145 (Mark Armstrong & Rob Porter eds. 2007).

± Joshua D. Wright, Antitrust Law and Competition for Distribution, 23 Yale J. Reg. 169 (2006).

Mark S. Popofsky, Defining Exclusionary Conduct, 73 Antitrust L.J. 435 (2006).

± John Asker, Diagnosing Foreclosure Due to Exclusive Dealing (Oct. 14, 2005).

± Joseph Farrell, Deconstructing Chicago on Exclusive Dealing (UC Berkeley Competition Policy Center Working Paper No. CPC05-053, Mar. 2005).

± Chiara Fumagalli & Massimo Motta, Exclusive Dealing and Entry When Buyers Compete (CEPR Discussion Paper No. 3493, Aug. 2002), final version at 96 Am. Econ. Rev. 785 (2006).

± Eric B. Rasmusen, J. Mark Ramseyer & John S. Wiley, Jr., Naked Exclusion, 81 Am. Econ. Rev. 1137 (1991).

± Ilya R. Segal & Michael D. Whinston, Naked Exclusion: Comment, 90 Am. Econ. Rev. 296 (2000).

± Eric B. Rasmusen, J. Mark Ramseyer & John Shepard Wiley Jr., Naked Exclusion: Reply, 90 Am. Econ. Rev. 310 (2000).

± John Simpson & Abraham L. Wickelgren, Naked Exclusion, Efficient Breach, and Downstream Competition, 97 Am. Econ. Rev. 1305 (2007).

± Chiara Fumagalli & Massimo Motta, Exclusive Dealing and Entry, when Buyers Compete (June 26, 2003).

± Julian Wright, Exclusive Dealing and Entry, when Buyers Compete: Comment, 99 Am. Econ. Rev. 1070 (2009).

± John Simpson & Abraham Wickelgren, The Use of Exclusive Contracts to Deter Entry (June 27, 2001).

Richard Gilbert, Exclusive Dealing, Preferential Dealing, and Dynamic Efficiency, 16 Rev. Indus. Org. 167 (2000).

± B. Douglas Bernheim & Michael D. Whinston, Exclusive Dealing (Feb. 1996), final version at 106 J. Pol. Econ. 64 (1998).

± Daniel P. O'Brien & Greg Shaffer, Nonlinear Supply Contracts, Exclusive Dealing, and Equilibrium Market Foreclosure, 6 J. Econ. & Mgmt. Strategy 755 (1997).

David Martimort, Exclusive Dealing, Common Agency, and Multiprincipals Incentive Theory, 27 RAND J. Econ. 1 (1996).

Y. Joseph Lin, On the Dampening-of-Competition Effect of Exclusive Dealing, 39 J. Indus. Econ. 209 (1993).

± Daniel P. O'Brien & Greg Shaffer, On the Dampening-of-Competition Effect of Exclusive Dealing, 41 J. Indus. Econ. 215 (1993).

Eric B. Rasmusen, J. Mark Ramseyer & ,John Shepard Wiley Jr., Naked Exclusion, 81 Am. Econ. Rev. 1137 (1991).

Ilya R. Segal & Michael D. Whinston, Naked Exclusion and Buyer Coordination (Harvard Institute of Economic Research Discussion Paper No. 1780, Sept. 1996).

Ilya R. Segal & Michael D. Whinston, Naked Exclusion: Comment, 90 Am. Econ. Rev. 296 (2000).

Philippe Aghion & Patrick Bolton, Contracts as a Barrier to Entry, 77 Am. Econ. Rev. 388 (1987).

Howard P. Marvel, Exclusive Dealing, 25 J. L. & Econ. 1 (1982).

Experimental economics

± Claudia M. Landeo & Kathryn E. Spier, Exclusive Dealing and Market Foreclosure: Further Experimental Results (July 2012), final version at 168 J. Institutional & Theoretical Econ. 150 (2012).

Case Studies

Stubhub/Ticketmaster (private 2015)
Maxon (private 2013)
Gogo (private 2012)
DIPF (FTC 2012)
PNY Technologies (private 2011)
ZF Meritor/Eaton (private 2006)

Stubhub/Ticketmaster
(private 2015)

Complaint for Violation of Sherman Act §§ 1-2 (15 U.S.C. §§1-2); California Cartwright Act and Business & Professions Code § 17200, Stubhub, Inc. v. Golden State Warriors, LLC, No. 3:15-cv-01436 (N.D. Cal. filed Mar. 29, 2015)

Maxon
(private 2013)

Second Amended Complaint, Maxon Auto Enters., Inc. v. Carfax, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-02680-AJN (S.D.N.Y. filed June 3, 2014) (original complaint filed Apr. 23, 2013)

Redacted Memorandum & Order (Sept. 29, 2014)

Gogo
(private 2012)

Complaint, Milne v. Gogo Inc., No. 12-8412 (C.D. Cal. filed Oct. 1, 2012)

Docket sheet (downloaded Dec. 25, 2012) (concluding with voluntary dismissal)

Class Action Complaint, Stewart v. Gogo, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-05164-EMC (N.D. Cal. filed Oct. 4, 2012)

Docket sheet (downloaded Feb. 5, 2014)

Summons (Oct. 4, 2012)

Proof of service (Nov. 5, 2012)

Defendant Gogo Inc.’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Dec. 10, 2012)

First Amended Class Action Complaint (Dec. 31, 2012)

Defendant Gogo Inc.’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Jan. 30, 2013)

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (Feb. 19, 2013)

Defendant Gogo Inc.’s Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (Mar. 6, 2013)

Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Apr. 10, 2013) (reported at 2013 WL 1501484)

Second Amended Class Action Complaint (Aug. 30, 2013)

Defendant Gogo Inc.’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof (Nov. 25, 2013)

Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (Dec. 12, 2013)

Defendant Gogo Inc.’s Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (Dec. 19, 2013)

Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (Jan. 29, 2014) (reported at 2014 WL 324570)

DIPF
(FTC 2012)

Complaint, In re McWane, Inc., No. 9351 (F.T.C. filed Jan. 4, 2012) (± FTC news release) (± FTC web page)

Statement of Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch, Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part in the Matter of McWane, Inc. and Star Pipe Products, Ltd., and in the Matter of Sigma Corporation (Jan. 4, 2012)

In re McWane, Inc., No. 9351 (F.T.C. Feb. 6, 2014) (sustaining only Count 6) (FTC news release)

Final Order (Feb. 6, 2014)

Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Joshua D. Wright (Feb. 6, 2014)

On appeal:

NB: The appeal was limited to the finding of liability on count six (exclusivity)

Opinion, McWane, Inc. v. FTC, No. 14-11363 (Apr. 15, 2015) (reported at 783 F.3d 814)

Judgment (Apr. 15, 2015)

Mandate (Apr. 18, 2015

See here for more case materials

PNY Technologies
(private 2011)
 
ZF Meritor/Eaton
(market share discounts)

(private 2006)

District court

Complaint, ZF Meritor LLC v. Eaton Corp., No. 1:06-cv-00623-SLR (D. Del. filed Oct. 5, 2006)

Docket sheet (downloaded July 7, 2014)

Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion to Exclude Opinion Testimony of Dr. David W. Deramus (May 11, 2009; redacted version filed May 18, 2009)

Memorandum Opinion (Aug. 20, 2009) (granting Eaton's motion to exclude plaintiff's expert testimony)

Final Jury Instructions (Oct. 7, 2009)

Verdict sheet (Oct. 8, 2009)

Amended Judgment Following a Jury Verdict Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 (Oct. 20, 2009)

Order (Mar. 10, 2011) (denying defendant's motion for a JMOL)

Memorandum Opinion (Mar. 10, 2011)

Defendant Eaton Corporation's Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Certification of Orders for Immediate Interlocutory Appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (July 8, 2011)

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Certification of Orders for Immediate Interlocutory Appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (July 22, 2011)

Defendant Eaton Corporation's Reply Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Certification of Orders for Immediate Interlocutory Appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(B) (Aug. 1, 2011)

Memorandum Opinion (Aug. 4, 2011)

Order (Aug. 4, 2011) (awarding plaintiffs $0 in damages and ordering defendant to show cause why a permanent injunction should not be entered)

Defendant Eaton Corporation’s Memorandum in Response to Order to Show Cause (Aug. 18, 2011)

Order (Aug. 19, 2011) (entering permanent injunction restraining defendant from linking discounts and other benefits to market penetration targets for class 8 transmissions)

Notice of Appeal (Aug. 19, 2011)

Third Circuit

Docket sheet No. 11-3301 (downloaded Mar. 2, 2014)

Oral argument

ZF Meritor LLC v. Eaton Corp., Nos. 11-3301 and 11-3426 (3d Cir. Sept. 28, 2012) (reported as 696 F.3d 254) (affirming the District Court‘s orders to the extent that they excluded Plaintiffs‘ expert‘s testimony based on the damages calculations in his initial expert report, but reversing to the extent that the District Court denied Plaintiffs‘ request to amend the report to submit alternate damages calculations; also vacating the District Court‘s order issuing injunctive relief since Plaintiffs lacked standing to seek injunctive relief because they are no longer in the heavy-duty truck transmissions market)

Judgment (Nov. 5, 2012)

Mandate (Nov. 5, 2012)

 

On remand

Scheduling Order (Jan. 8, 2013) (ordering Plaintiffs' Amended Expert Damages Report to be provided to Defendant by Jan. 16, 2013)

Plaintiffs’ Motion Regarding Nature and Scope of Trial (Mar. 25, 2013)

Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion Regarding Nature and Scope of Trial (Apr. 29, 2013)

Plaintiffs’ Reply in Further Support of their Motion Regarding Nature and Scope of Trial (May 1, 2013)

 

Defendant Eaton Corporation’s Motion to Exclude Opinion Testimony of Dr. David W. Deramus (Mar. 25, 2013)

Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion to Exclude Opinion Testimony of Dr. David W. Deramus (Mar. 25, 2013; redacted version filed Apr. 1, 2013)

Plaintiffs’ Answering Brief in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Opinion Testimony of Dr. David W. Deramus (Apr. 22, 2013; redacted version filed Apr. 29, 2013)

Defendant’s Reply Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Exclude Opinion Testimony of Dr. David W. Deramus (May 1, 2013; redacted version filed June 10, 2013)

 

Defendant Eaton Corporation’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Mar. 25, 2013)

Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Mar. 25, 2013; redacted version filed Apr. 1, 2013)

Plaintiffs’ Answering Brief in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Apr. 22, 2013; redacted version filed Apr. 29, 2013)

Defendant’s Reply Brief in Support of its Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (May 1, 2013; redacted version filed June 10, 2013)

Memorandum and Order (Dec. 20, 2013) (denying defendant's motions for exclusion of testimony and for jmol)

Order (Dec. 20, 2013) (denying defendant's motion to exclude testimony and for jmol and granting plaintiff's motion regarding nature and scope of trial)

 

Defendant Eaton Corporation’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Motion in Limine to Exclude Argument and Evidence of a Portion of Plaintiffs’ Alleged Damages (Apr. 22, 2014)

Defendant Eaton Corporation’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Motion in Limine to Exclude Argument and Evidence of a Portion of Plaintiffs' Alleged Damages (Apr. 22, 2014)

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (May 2, 2014)

Defendant Eaton Corporation's Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Motion in Limine to Exclude Argument and Evidence of a Portion of Plaintiffs' Alleged Damages (May 8, 2014)

Memorandum (June 5, 2014) (denying defendant's motion for partial summary judgment)

Order (June 5, 2014)

 

Pretrial Stipulation and Order (May 29, 2014) (signed June 5, 2014)

Plaintiffs’ Statement Accompanying their Proposed Preliminary Jury Instructions for the Damages Phase Trial (May 14, 2014)

Exhibits

Defendant’s Statement Accompanying its Proposed Preliminary Jury Instructions for the Damages Phase Trial (June 3, 2014)

Exhibits

Plaintiffs’ Statement Accompanying their Revised Proposed Preliminary Jury Instructions for the Damages Phase Trial (June 13, 2014)

Exhibit A
Exhibit B

The Parties’ Statement Accompanying their Proposed Final Jury Instructions (June 16, 2014)

Exhibit: Proposed Final Jury Instructions

Plaintiffs’ Objections Regarding “Causation and Damages” Preliminary Jury Instructions (June 20, 2014)

Exhibit

Defendant Eaton Corporation's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Objections Regarding "Causation And Damages" Preliminary Jury Instructions and Motion for Reargument (June 20, 2014)

Exhibit

Scheduling Order (Mar. 7, 2014) (jury trial to commence on June 23, 2014)

Eaton Corp., Press Release, Eaton and Meritor Announce Settlement of Litigation: Eaton to Pay Meritor $500 Million (June 23, 2014)

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Sue L. Robinson - Status Conference held on 6/23/2014. The parties asked the court to adjourn trial. Case settled.

Order (July 2, 2014) (assessing costs for cancelled jury trial)

 

19. IP/antitrust interface

21. NPVR