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

21. NPVR

 

23. RPM

 

 

22. Tying and Mixed Bundling

 

Reading and class notes
Significant precedents
Tying
Mixed bundling
Reference materials
Case studies

 
Primary Materials
Supplemental Materials

Reading and Class Notes

Reading and class notes

Units 21-23 reading materials

Unit 22 class slides

 

Significant Precedents

Cases

Henry v. A.B. Dick Co., 224 U.S. 1 (1912)

Note: This is a patent case that upheld a contributory infringement claim where Henry sold ink for use in a patented mimeograph machine manufactured by A.B. Dick knowing that that the ink purchaser was bound by her license agreement to purchase ink and other supplies for use in the machine only from A.B. Dick.

District court

Supreme Court

Henry v. A.B. Dick Co., 224 U.S. 1 (1912)

 

IBM Corp. v. United States, 298 U.S. 131 (1936)

District court

Complaint, United States v. IBM Corp., Eq.. 66-215 (S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 26, 1932) (Blue Book No. 381)

Docket sheet

Opinion, United States v. IBM Corp., Eq.. 66-215 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 1935) (reported at 13 F. Supp. 11)

Consent Decree (Jan. 29, 1936) (for Remington Rand, Inc.)

Supreme Court

aff'd, IBM Corp. v. United States, 298 U.S. 131 (Apr. 27, 1936)

Mandate (Apr. 27, 1936)

On remand

Final Order on Mandate (Aug. 6, 1936)

 

International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U.S. 392 (1947)

District court

Complaint, United States v. International Salt Co., Civ. No. 32-310 (S.D.N.Y. filed July 26, 1945) (Blue Book No. 828)

United States v. International Salt Co., 6 F.R.D. 302 (S.D.N.Y. Nov 20, 1946)

Supreme Court

aff'd, International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U.S. 392 (1947)

 

Times-Picaynue Publishing Co. v. United States, 345 U.S. 594 (1953)

District court

Complaint, United States v. Times-Picayune Pub. Co., Civ. No. 2797 (E.D. La. filed June 14, 1950) (Blue Book No. 1041)

United States v. Times-Picayune Pub. Co., 105 F. Supp. 670 (E.D. La. May 27, 1952)

Supreme Court

rev'd, Times-Picaynue Publishing Co. v. United States, 345 U.S. 594 (1953)

 

Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. United States, 356 U.S. 1 (1958) (± Oyez)

District court

Complaint, United States v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., Civ. No. 2277 (W.D. Wash. filed May 26, 1949) (Blue Book No. 977)

Docket sheet

United States v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 142 F. Supp. 679 (W.D. Wash. Jun 23, 1956) (No. 2277)

Supreme Court

aff'd, Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. United States, 356 U.S. 1 (1958)

 

United States v. Loew's Inc., 371 U.S. 38 (1962)

District court

Complaint, United States v. Loew’s Inc., Civ. No. 119-24 (S.D.N.Y. filed Mar, 27, 1957) (Blue Book No. 1331) (DOJ copy)

Docket sheet

Opinion, Findings of Fact, and Conclusions of Law, United States v. Loew's, Inc., Civ. No. 119-24 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 1960) reported at 189 F. Supp. 373)

Final Judgment (Feb. 1, 1961)

Supreme Court

vacated and remanded, United States v. Loew's Inc., 371 U.S. 38 (1962)

On remand

Final Judgment on Remand, United States v. Loew’s Inc., Civ. No. 119-24 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 1963)

 

Siegel v. Chicken Delight, Inc., 448 F.2d 43 (9th Cir. 1971)

 
 

United States Steel Corp. v. Fortner Enters., Inc., 429 U.S. 610 (1977) (± Oyez)

District court

 

Sixth Circuit

Fortner Enters., Inc. v. United States Steel Corp., 523 F.2d 961 (6th Cir. Oct. 3, 1975) (No. 75-1208)

Supreme Court

rev'd, United States Steel Corp. v. Fortner Enters., Inc., 429 U.S. 610 (Feb. 22, 1977) (75-853)

 

Jefferson Parish Hosp. Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2 (1984) (± Oyez)

See below for materials

 

Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451 (1992) (± Oyez)

See below for materials

 

Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., 547 U.S. 28 (2006) (± Oyez)

See below for materials

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 5: Tying
Chapter 6: Bundled Discounts and Single-Product Loyalty Discounts

 

Tying

Jefferson Parish

 

Jefferson Parish Hosp. Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2 (1984) (± Oyez)

District court

513 F. Supp. 532 (E.D. La. 1981)

Fifth Circuit

rev'd, 686 F.2d 286 (5th Cir. 1982)

Supreme Court

Joint Appendix (Index)

Brief for the Petitioners (May 13, 1983)

Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae in Support of Reversal, Jefferson Parish Hosp. Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2 (1984) (No. 82-1031)

Brief for the Respondent (July 7, 1983)

Reply Brief for the Petitioners (Oct. 25, 1983)

rev'd, 466 U.S. 2 (1984)

On remand

764 F.2d 1139 (5th Cir. 1985) (affirming district court's judgment for defendants)

Commentary

± William J. Lynk, Tying and Exclusive Dealing: Jefferson Parish Hospital v. Hyde, in The Antitrust Revolution 342 (John E. Kwoka, Jr. & Lawrence J. White eds., 3d ed. 1999)

 

Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451 (1992) (± Oyez)

District court

Image Technical Servs., Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 1988 WL 156332 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 1988) (No. C-87-1686-WWS)

Ninth Circuit

rev'd, Image Technical Servs., Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 903 F.2d 612 (9th Cir. May 1, 1990) (No. 88-2686)

Supreme Court

Petition

Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae (May 22, 1991)

Merits

Joint Appendix (Index)

Petitioner's Brief on the Merits (July 30, 1991)

Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioner (Aug. 1, 1991)

Brief of Respondents (Sept. 20, 1991)

Petitioner's Reply Brief on the Merits (Oct. 21, 1991)

aff'd, Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451 (1992)

On remand

Image Technical Servs., Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 1996 WL 101173 (N.D. Cal. Feb 28, 1996) (No. C 87-1686 AWT)

Ninth Circuit

aff'd in part, rev'd in part, Image Technical Servs., Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 125 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. Aug 26, 1997) (Nos. 96-15293, 96-15296)

Commentary

± Jonathan I. Gleklen, The ISO Litigation Legacy of Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services: Twenty Years and Not Much to Show for It, Antitrust, Fall, 2012, at 56.

Jeffrey K. MacKie-Mason & John Metzler, Links between Markets and Aftermarkets: Kodak (1997), in The Antitrust Revolution 558 (John E. Kwoka, Jr. & Lawrence J. White eds., 5th ed. 2009)

 

Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., 547 U.S. 28 (2006) (± Oyez)

 

District court

 

Federal Circuit

 

Supreme Court

Docket sheet (downloaded Dec. 21, 2014)

Brief for the Petitioners (Aug. 4, 2005)

Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners (Aug. 4, 2005)

Brief of the American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners (Aug. 4, 2005)

Brief of New York Intellectual Property Law Association as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners (Aug. 4, 2005)

Brief of Amicus Curiae American Intellectual Property Law Association in Support of Neither Party (Aug. 4, 2005)

Brief of the Washington Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners (Aug. 4, 2005)

Brief for Respondent (Sept. 28, 2005)

Brief of Amici Curiae American Antitrust Institute et al (Sept. 28, 2005)

Brief of Professors Barry Nalebuff, Ian Ayres, and Lawrence Sullivan as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent (Sept. 28, 2005)

Reply Brief of Petitioners (Nov. 2, 2005)

Commentary

Barry Nalebuff, Unfit to be Tied: An Analysis of Trident v. Independent Ink (2006) (July 31, 2007), final version published in The Antitrust Revolution 365 (John E. Kwoka, Jr. & Lawrence J. White eds., 5th ed. 2009)

Mixed Bundling

LePage's and Cascade Health

LePage's

LePage's Inc. v. 3M Co., Nos. 00-1368 & 00-1473 (3d Cir. Mar. 25, 2003) (en banc) (reported as 324 F.3d 141)

District court

Complaint, LePage's Inc. v. 3M, (No. Civ. A. 97-3983 (E.D. Pa. filed June 11, 1997)

Docket sheet

Memorandum (Sept. 2, 1998) (granting plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and will deny defendant's motion for partial summary judgment.

Second Amended Complaint, LePage's Inc. v. 3M, (No. Civ. A. 97-3983 (E.D. Pa. filed Sept. 2, 1998)

Memorandum (May 28, 1999) (denying defendant's motion for summary judgment)

Verdict Form (Oct. 13, 1999)

Memorandum, LePage's Inc. v. 3M, (No. Civ. A. 97-3983 (E.D. Pa. Mar 14, 2000) (granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law and denying defendant's motion for a new trial) (reported at 2000 WL 280350)

Notice of Appeal (Apr. 25, 2000)

Supersedeas bond in the sum of $ 72,192,512.00 with SAFECO Insurance Company of America as surety posted (Apr. 27, 2000)

Third Circuit

LePage's Inc. v. 3M Co., Nos. 00-1368 & 00-1473 (3d Cir. docketed Apr. 28, 2000)

Docket sheet (downloaded Dec. 18. 2014)

LePage's Inc. v. 3M Co., Nos. 00-1368 & 00-1473 (3d Cir. Jan. 14, 2002) (vacated)

vacated, LePage's Inc. v. 3M Co., Nos. 00-1368 & 00-1473 (3d Cir. Feb. 25, 2002)

aff'd in part, rev'd in part, LePage's Inc. v. 3M Co., Nos. 00-1368 & 00-1473 (3d Cir. Mar. 25, 2003) (en banc) (reported as 324 F.3d 141)

Following appeal

Notice of Satisfaction of Civil Judgment (July 9, 2004)

Commentary

Gary L. Roberts, The Use of Bundled Rebates by a Dominant Firm: LePage's v. 3M (2003), in The Antitrust Revolution 276 (John E. Kwoka, Jr. & Lawrence J. White eds., 5th ed. 2009)

Cascade Health

Cascade Health Solutions v. Peace Health, Nos. 05-35627, 05-35640, 05-36153, 05-36202 (9th Cir. Feb. 1, 2008) (Order Amending Opinion and Amended Opinion) (reported as 515 F.3d 883), )

District court

Docket sheet (downloaded Aug. 9, 2014)

Complaint, McKenzie-Willamette Hop. v. Peace health, No. Civ. 02-6032-HA (D. Or. Jan. 28, 2002)

Order, McKenzie-Willamette Hop. v. Peace health, No. Civ. 02-6032-HA (D. Or. Aug. 20, 2002) (denying defendant's motion to dismiss tying claim)

First Amended Complaint (Mar. 11, 2003) (filed under seal)

Opinion and Order. McKenzie-Willamette Hosp. v. Peacehealth, No. Civ. 02-6032-HA, 2003 WL 23537980 (D. Or. Aug. 15, 2003) (granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion for summary judgment)

Jury instructions, Mckenzie-Willamette Hosp. v. Peacehealth, No. Civ. 02-6032-HA

Special Verdict Form (Oct. 31, 2003)

Judgment (May 2, 2005) (on merits)

Judgment (Dec. 29, 2005) (re Motion for Attorney Fees and Related Non-Taxable Expenses and Bill of Costs)

Ninth Circuit

Docket sheet No. 05-35627 (downloaded Aug. 9, 2014)
Docket sheet No. 05-36153 (downloaded Aug. 9, 2014)

Brief of Amici Curiae American Antitrust Institute, Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union Supporting McKenzie-Williamette and Affirmance (____) (Nos. 05–36153, No. 05-36202)

Order and Opinion (9th Cir. amended Feb. 1, 2008)

No. 05-35640: Vacating the judgment in favor of McKenzie on its monopolization and tortious interference claims and certifying a question to the Oregon Supreme Court on the price discrimination claim.

No. 05-35627: Vacating the summary judgment in favor of Peace- Health.

No. 05-36153: Vacating the district court’s order awarding attorneys’ fees and costs to McKenzie.

Order (Feb. 1, 2008) (certifying question on Oregan price discrimination law to the Orgeon Supreme court)

Order Vacating Prior Order Certifying Question to the Supreme Court of Oregon, and for Issuance of Mandate (Sept. 3, 2008)

No. 05-36202: Dismissing the appeal as moot.

Staying further proceedings pending resolution of the price discrimination question certified to the Oregon Supreme Court.

On remand

Joint Stipulation of Dismissal , Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (Sept. 4, 2008)

Cases dopting a cost-based rule

Commentary

Commentary
 

See below.

Reference Materials

Other significant precedents

± United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001), aff'g in part, rev'g in part, and remanding in part, 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000)

± United States v. Microsoft Corp., 147 F.3d 935 (D.C.Cir. 1998), rev'g and remanding 980 F. Supp. 537 (D.D.C. 1997)

± Queen City Pizza, Inc. v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., 124 F.3d 430 (3d Cir. 1997)

Significant recent tying cases

Brantley v. NBC Universal, Inc., No. 09-56785 (9th Cir. Mar. 30, 2012)

± In re Visa Check/Mastermoney Antitrust Litig., No. 96-CV-5238, 2003 WL 1712568 (E.D.N.Y. Apr.1, 2003) (denying defendants' motion for sumary judgment in challenge to Visa and MasterCard for allegedly tying the merchant acceptance of credit cards to the acceptance of debit cards)

Existence of a tying arrangement
 
Market definition in tying arrangements

± Hack v. President & Fellows of Yale Coll., 237 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2000) (finding the alleged relevant product market, a Yale education, implausible)

Coercion
 
"Not insubstantial" amount of commerce in the tied product

Blough v. Holland Realty, Inc., No. 08-35536 (9th Cir. July 27, 2009) (reported as 574 F.3d 1084) (holding zero foreclosure of competitors in the tied product negates the existence of the "not insubstantial" amount of commerce prong)

Business justification

United States v. Jerrold Elecs. Corp., 187 F. Supp. 545 (E.D. Pa. 1960), aff'd per curiam, 365 U.S. 567 (1961)

Franchises and tying arrangements

Opinion and Order, Burda v. Wendy's Int'l, Inc., 2:08-cv-00246-GCS-MRA (S.D. Sept. 21, Ohio 2009) (denying motion to dismiss) (reported as 659 F. Supp. 2d 928)

Docket sheet (downloaded June 28, 2014)

Opinion and Order, Burda v. Wendy's Int'l, Inc., 2:08-cv-00246-GCS-MRA (S.D. Ohio Oct. 9, 2012)

Tying commentary

Dennis W. Carlton & Michael Waldman, Upgrades, Switching Costs and the Leverage Theory of Tying, 122 Econ. J. 675 (2012).

± Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Antitrust and Nonexcluding Ties (Sept. 2012).

± Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Tying Arrangements and Antitrust Policy: Asset Specificity and Consumer Satisfaction (Feb. 17, 2011).

± Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Tying and the Rule of Reason: Understanding Leverage, Foreclosure, and Price Discrimination (Mar. 2011).

± Einer R. Elhauge, The Failed Resurrection of the Single Monopoly Profit Theory (Feb. 11, 2010).

± Einer Elhague, Tying, Bundled Discounts, and the Death of the Single Monopoly Profit Theory (John M. Olin Center for Law, Economics, and Business, Discussion Paper No. 629, rev. Oct. 2009), final version at 123 Harv. L. Rev. 397 (2009)

Harry First, No Single Monopoly Profit, No Single Policy Prescription?, 5 Competition Pol'y Int'l 199 (2009).

± Daniel A. Crane & Joshua D. Wright, Can Bundled Discounting Increase Consumer Prices Without Excluding Rivals?, 5 Competition Pol'y Int'l 209 (2009).

± Paul Seabright, The Undead? A Comment on Professor Elhauge’s Paper, 5 Competition Pol'y Int'l 243 (2009).

± Dennis W. Carlton & Michael Waldman, Tying, in 3 Issues In Competition Law and Policy 1859 (ABA Section of Antitrust Law 2008)

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 183 (Keith N. Hylton ed., 2010)

± Jean Tirole, The Analysis of Tying Cases: A Primer (Dec. 9, 2004)

± Dennis W. Carlton & Michael Waldman, How Economics Can Improve Antitrust Doctrine towards Tie-In Sales: Comment on Tirole's 'An Analysis of Tying Cases: A Primer', 1(1) Competition Pol'y Int'l 27 (Spring 2005)

± Jean Tirole, The Analysis of Tying Cases: A Primer, 1 Competition Pol'y Int'l 1 (2005)

Dennis W. Carlton & Michael Waldman, How Economics Can Improve Antitrust Doctrine towards Tie-In Sales: Comment on Tirole's "An Analysis of Tying Cases: A Primer", 1 Competition Pol'y Int'l 27 (2005)

Dennis Carlton & Michael Waldman, The Strategic Use of Tying to Preserve and Create Market Power in Evolving Industries, 33 RAND J. Econ. 194 (2002).

± Michael Whinston, Tying, Foreclosure, and Exclusion, 80 Am. Econ. Rev. 837 (1990).

Bundling commentary

± United States, Roundtable on Bundled and Loyalty Discounts and Rebates (OECD Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs Competition Committee, DAF/COMP/WD(2009)99, Oct. 6, 2009)

± Chiara Fumagali & Massimo Motta, On the Use of Price-cost Tests in Loyalty Discounts: Which Implications from Economic Theory? (January 2015).

± Lear Competition Note, Which Test For Bundled Discounts (Nov. 2011).

Jeffrey A. Jaeckel, LePage’s, Cascade Health Solutions, and a Bundle of Confusion: What Is a Discounter To Do?, Antitrust, Summer, 2010, at 46.

Gary L. Roberts, The Use of Bundled Rebates by a Dominant Firm: LePage's v. 3M (2003), in The Antitrust Revolution 276 (John E. Kwoka, Jr. & Lawrence J. White eds., 5th ed. 2009).

± Alessandro Avenali, Anna D’Annunzioa & Pierfrancesco Reverberia, Bundling, Competition and Quality Investment: A Welfare Analysis (____) (± PowerPoint presentation)

± Timothy J. Muris & Vernon L. Smith, Antitrust and Bundled Discounts: An Experimental Analysis, 75 Antitrust L.J. 399 (2008).

± Patrick Greenlee, David Reitman & David S. Sibley, Comment on Muris and Smith, “Antitrust and Bundled Discounts: An Experimental Analysis”, 77 Antitrust L.J. 669 (2011)

± Timothy J. Muris, Vernon L. Smith, Anil Caliskan & Bruce H. Kobayashi, Antitrust and Bundled Discounts: An Experimental Analysis—A Reply, 77 Antitrust L.J. 683 (2011)

± Dennis W. Carlton & Michael Waldman, Safe Harbors for Quantity Discounts and Bundling (Jan. 2008)

Anil Caliskan, David Porter, Stephen Rassenti, Vernon L. Smith & Bart J. Wilson, Exclusionary Bundling and the Effects of a Competitive Fringe, 163 J. Institutional & Theoretical Econ. 109 (2007).

± Christoph Engel, Exclusionary Bundling and the Effects of a Competitive Fringe, 163 J. Institutional & Theoretical Econ. 133 (2007).

± Barry Nalebuff, Bundling as an Entry Barrier (rev. July 29, 2003), final version at 119 Q.J. Econ. 159 (2004)

± Daniel L. Rubinfeld, 3M’s Bundled Rebates: An Economic Perspective, 72 U. Chi. L. Rev. 243 (2005).

± Stephen Martin, Strategic and Welfare Implications of Bundling, 62 Econ. Letters 371 (1999).

± Yongmin Chen, Equilibrium Product Bundling, 70 J. Bus. 85 (1997).

± R. Preston McAfee, John McMillan & Michael D. Whinston, Multiproduct Monopoly, Commodity Bundling, and Correlation of Values, 104 Q.J. Econ. 371 (1989).

± William J. Adams & Janet L. Yellen, Commodity Bundling and the Burden of Monopoly, 90 Q.J. Econ. 475 (1976).

Block blocking

F. Andrew Hanssen, The Block Booking of Films Reexamined, 43 J.L. & Econ. 395 (2000).

± Roy W. Kenney & Benjamin Klein, The Economics of Block Booking, 26 J. L. & Econ. 497 (1983).

George J. Stigler, United States v. Loew's Inc.: A Note on Block-Booking, 1963 Supreme Ct. Rev. 152 (1963).

Case Studies

Collins Inkjet/Kodak
Cablevision/Viacom
Schuylkill/Cardinal Health
Cox Enterprises Set-Top Boxes
Shamrock Marketing/Bridgestone

Collins Inkjet/Kodak

District court

Complaint for Injunctive Relief, Collins Inkjet Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., No. 1:13-cv-00664 (S.D. Ohio filed Sept. 19, 2013)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Sept. 19, 2013)

Defendant Eastman Kodak Company’s Motion for Partial Dismissal and to Transfer the Entire Case (Oct. 15, 2013)

Answer (Oct. 21, 2013)

Order and Opinion (Mar. 6, 2014; redacted version filed Mar. 21, 2014) (granting preliminary injunction)

Supplemental Order (Mar. 19, 2014)

Notice of Appeal of March 6, 2014 Order (Mar. 31, 2014)

Plaintiff’s First Amended and Supplemental Complaint (Mar. 27, 2014)

Defendant’s Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended and Supplemental Complaint (Apr. 9, 2014)

Defendant Eastman Kodak Company’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Apr. 9, 2014)

Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal (Apr. 22, 2014)

Order Granting the Parties Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal (Apr. 28, 2014)

Interlocutory appeal

Docket sheet (downloaded May 9, 2015)

Brief of Appellant (Spr. 30, 2014; redacted version filed July 21, 2014)

Brief of Appellee (June 2, 2014; redacted version filed July 28, 2014)

Reply Brief of Appellant (June 16, 2014; redacted version filed July 21, 2014)

Collins Inkjet Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., No. 14-3306.(6th Cir. Mar. 16, 2015) (reported at 781 F.3d 264)

Mandate (Apr. 8, 2015)

Cablevision/Viacom

Complaint, Cablevision Sys. Corp. v. Viacom Int'l Inc., No. 1:13-cv-01278-LTS (S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 7, 2013)

Docket sheet (downloaded June 21, 2014)

Notice of Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (May 8, 2013)

Memorandum of Law of Viacom International and Black Entertainment Television in Support of their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint (May 8, 2013)

Amended Complaint (July 16, 2013)

Notice of Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (Aug. 23, 2013)

Memorandum of Law of Viacom International and Black Entertainment Television in Support of their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (Aug. 23, 2013)

Memorandum of Law of Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (Oct. 4, 2013)

Reply Memorandum of Law of Viacom International and Black Entertainment Television in Support of their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (Nov. 8, 2013)

Sur-Reply Memorandum of Law of Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (Nov. 25, 2013)

Memorandum Order (June 20, 2014) (denying Viacom's motion to dismiss)

Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice (Oct. 16, 2015) (settlement terns not publicly disclosed)

Schuylkill/Cardinal Health

Amended Class Action Complaint, Schuylkill Heath Sys v. Cardinal Health, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-07065-JS (E.D. Pa. filed July 8, 2013) (original complaint filed Dec. 18, 2012)

Docket sheet (downloaded Aug. 9, 2014)

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dec. 13, 2013)

Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dec. 13, 2013)

Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Jan. 13, 2014)

Reply in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Mar. 3, 2014)

Memorandum (July 30, 2014)

Order (July 30, 2014)

Cox Enterprises Set-Top Boxes

Note: In 2009, several of Cox Communication’s premium cable subscribers sued the company for allegedly tying its premium services to its box rentals. The JMPL litigation consolidated the cases in the Western District of Oklahoma for pretrial proceedings. The district court denied certification to a nationwide class and the Tenth Circuit affirmed. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed multiple class actions around the country for isolated geographic regions. As in the original action, the cases were consolidated in the Western District of Oklahoma for pretrial proceedings. A bellweather case for Oklahoma City proceeded to trial in 2015.

Bellweather trial in Healy v. Cox Communications Inc

Complaint, Healy v. Cox Commc'ns, Inc., CIV-12-481-C (W.D. Okla. filed Apr. 30, 2012)

Docket sheet (downloaded Oct. 23, 2015)
Docket sheet No. 5:12-ml-02048 (downloaded Nov. 13, 2015)

Memorandum Opinion and Order (Jan. 9, 2014) (granting class certification in Healy)

Memorandum Opinion and Order (July 3, 2014) (granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion for summary judgment) (reported at 2014 WL 2993788)

Cox Communications, Inc.’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Memorandum In Support (Oct. 21, 2015)

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Cox’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Oct. 23, 2015)

 

Plaintiff’s Proposed Special Verdict Form (Oct. 22, 2015)

Exhibit 1. Short form
Exhibit 2. Long Form

Instructions to the Jury (Oct. 29, 2015)

Court's Supplemental Instruction No. 1 (Oct. 29, 2015)
Court's Supplemental Instruction No. 2 (Oct. 29, 2015)
Court's Supplemental Instruction No. 3 (Oct. 29, 2015)
Court's Supplemental Instruction No. 4 (Oct. 29, 2015)
Jury Note 2 (Oct. 29, 2015)
Court's Supplemental Instruction No. 5 (Oct. 30, 2015)
Court's Supplemental Instruction No. 6 (Oct. 29, 2015)
Jury Note 3 (Oct. 29, 2015)

 

Verdict Form (Oct. 29, 2015)

Cox Communications, Inc.’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or in the Alternative for a New Trial, and Memorandum in Support (Oct. 29, 2015)

Plaintiff’s Memorandum Regarding Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50(a) and 50(b) (Oct. 29, 2015)

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Cox’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or in the Alternative for a New Trial (Nov. 5, 2015)

Cox Communications, Inc.’s Reply in Support of Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or in the Alternative for a New Trial (Nov. 9, 2015)

Memorandum Opinion and Order (Nov. 12, 2015) (granting defendant's motion for a jmol)

Judgment (Nov. 12, 2015)

Notice of Appeal (Nov. 16, 2015)

Notice of Conditional Cross-Appeal (Nov. 24, 2015)

Tenth Circuit

Healy v. Cox Commc'ns, No. 15-6218 (10 Cir. docketed Nov. 17, 2015)

Docket sheet (downloaded May 1, 2016)

Preliminary Record (Nov. 17, 2015)

Plaintiff/Appellant’s Opening Brief (Feb. 29, 2016)

Brief of Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant Cox Communications, Inc. (Apr. 4, 2016)

 

Shamrock Marketing/Bridgestone

Complaint, Shamrock Mktg., Inc. v. Bridgestone Bandag, LLC, No. 3:10-cv-00074-JGH (W.D. Ky. filed Feb. 4, 2010)

Docket sheet (downloaded Dec. 27, 2011)

Agreed Protective Order (Apr. 1, 2010)

Bridgestone Bandag, LLC's Motion To Dismiss (Mar. 31, 2010) (proposed order)

Memorandum in support filed under seal

Memorandum of Plaintiff, Shamrock Marketing, Inc. in Response to Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Bridgestone Bandag, LLC (May 26, 2010)

Bridgestone Bandag, LLC’s Reply Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Dismiss (June 14, 2010)

Memorandum Opinion (Mar. 11, 2011)

Answer (Mar. 25, 2011)

Bridgestone Bandag, LLC’s First Amended Answer (Apr. 4, 2011)

Order From Scheduling Conference (May 23, 2011)

Order Setting Jury Trial (May 23, 2011)

Bridgestone Bandag, LLC's Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures (July 15, 2011)

Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures (July 15, 2011)

Plaintiff’s Amended Initial Disclosures (July 23, 2011)

 

21. NPVR

23. RPM