Hsi

 

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

25. Joint ventures

   

 

 

26. Extraterritoriality

 

Reading and class notes
Statutes and significant precedents
Reference materials
Case studies

 
Primary Materials
Supplemental Materials

Reading and Class Notes

Reading and class notes

 

 

Statutes and Significant Precedents

The statutes

Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act, Pub. L. 97–290, title IV, § 402, 96 Stat. 1246 (Oct. 8, 1982) (current version at ± 15 U.S.C. § 6a)

Note: The FTAIA also placed identical restrictions on the reach Section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission Act. See ± 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(3). There is no legislation, however, that place these restrictions on the reach fo the Clayton Act.

Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982, H.R. Rep. No. 97-686 (Aug. 2, 1982)

Jurisdictional or an element of the offense
 

Morrison v. Nat’l Australia Bank Ltd., No. 08–1191 (2010) (reported as 130 S. Ct. 2869)

Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., No. 04–944 (2006) (reported as 546 U.S. 500)

Foreign and export commerce
 

F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A., 542 U.S. 155 (2004) (± Briefs) (± Oyez)

± James R. Martin & Jodi Trulove, Empagran—Practical Considerations from the Trenches, Antitrust, Fall 2009, at 72.

Import commerce
 

Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764 (1993) (± Oyez)

United States v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945) (“ALCOA”)

American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347 (1909)

Reference Materials

Recent cases

In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., No. 11-cv-05513-JST (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2016)

United States v. Hui Hsiung, No. 12-10492 (9th Cir. July 10, 2014) (reported at 758 F.3d 1074), amended and superseded (9th Cir. Jan. 30, 2015) (reported at 778 F.3d 738)

Lotes Co., Ltd. v. Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., No. 13‐2280 (2d Cir. June 4, 2014) (reported at 753 F.3d 395)

Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp., No. 1:09-cv-06610 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 23, 2014) (reported at 2014 WL 258154), aff'd, No. 14‐8003 (7th Cir. Mar. 27, 2014) (granting plaintiff’s unopposed petition for leave to take an interlocutory appeal, dispensing with further briefing and oral argument, and affirming district court's judgment) (reported at 746 F.3d 842), vacated and superseded (7th Cir. Nov. 26, 2014), amended (7th Cir. Jan. 12, 2015) (reported at 775 F.3d 816) (see below for case materials)

In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., No. M 07-1827 SI (N.D. Calif. Aug. 29, 2012)

Carrier Corp. v. Outokumpu Oyj, Nos. 07-6052/6114 (6th Cir. Mar. 2, 2012) (reported at 673 F.3d 430) (click here for briefs)

Minn-Chem, Inc. v. Agrium Inc., 683 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 2012) (en banc)

Animal Sci. Prod. Inc. v. China Minmetals Corp., 654 F.3d 462 (3d Cir. 2011)

Act of state
Foreign sovereign compulsion
International comity

Second Amended Class Action Complaint, Animal Sci. Prods. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co., No. 1:05-CV-00453 (DGT) (JO), 06-MD-1738 (E.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 27, 2007)

In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litig., No. 06-mdl-1738 (DGT) (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2008) (reported at 584 F. Supp. 2d 546)

Commentary

± Gerard F. Bifulco, From Sea to Shining Sea: A New Approach to Interpreting the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (Mar. 31, 2014).

± Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction under the Antitrust Laws ( U. Iowa Legal Studies Research Paper No. 13-14, Feb. 27, 2013).

± Joseph P. Bauer, The Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act: Do We Really Want to Return to American Banana?, 65 Maine L. Rev. 4 (2012);

± Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Antitrust's 'Jurisdictional' Reach Abroad (Nov. 20, 2011).

± Max Huffman, A Retrospective on Twenty-Five Years of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act, 44 Houston L. Rev. 285 (2007).

Case Studies

TFT-LCD (Hanstarr)
Cathode Ray Tubes
AUO (DOJ)
AUO (AT&T Mobility)
Lotes
Minn-Chem
Motorola Mobility
Vitamin C litigation (including Animal Science)

TFT-LCD
(relates to Best Buy Co. v. Hannstar Display Corp.)

N.D. Cal.

Jury Instructions (Draft - Post Conference), In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., No. M 07-1827 SI, MDL No. 1827 (N.D. Calif. Aug. 28, 2013) (complete instructions)
(relating to Best Buy Co. v. AU Optronics Corp., No. 10-CV-4572 SI, and Best Buy Co. v. Toshiba Corp., Case No. 12-CV-4114 SI)

Verdict form (Sept. 3, 2013)
Judgment (Sept. 4, 2013)

Order Re: Post-Trial Motions (Nov. 20, 2013) (with respect to Best Buy Co. v. AU Optronics Corp., No. 10-CV-4572 SI)

Amended Judgment (Nov. 20, 2013)

Ninth Circuit (unpublished opinion)

Docket sheet (downloaded July 9, 2016)

Opening Brief of Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee (Dec. 17, 2014) (for HannStar Display Corporation)

Response Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants (Mar. 2, 2015)

Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee’s Response and Reply Brief (May 4, 2015)

Reply Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants (June 4, 2015)

Memorandum, In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., No. 13-17408 (9th Cir. Jan. 7, 2016) (unpublished) (affirming amended judgment)

Mandate (Mar. 28, 2016)

Cathode Ray Tubes

First Amended Complaint, Best Buy Co. v. Hitachi, Ltd., No. 3:11-cv-05513-SC (N.D. Cal. filed Oct. 13, 2013)
This is one of the individual complaints consolidated in In re Cathode Ray Tubes Antitrust Litig., No. 3:07-cv-5944 SC, MDL No. 1917 (N.D. Cal. filed ____) (original complaint filed Nov. 26, 2007) (docket sheet)

Defendant Beijing Matsushita Color CRT Co., Ltd.’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Certain Direct Action Purchaser Complaints (Nov. 4, 2013) (Dkt. No. 2118)

Plaintiffs Best Buy, Target, and Tech Data’s Consolidated Opposition to Defendant Beijing Matsushita Color CRT Co., Ltd.’s Motion to Dismiss Certain Direct Action Purchaser Complaints (Jan. 17, 2014)

AUO (DOJ)

United States v. AU Optronics Corp., No. 12-10500 (9th Cir. docketed Oct. 4, 2012).

Docket sheet (downloaded Dec. 18, 2013)

Order (Dec. 21, 2012) (consolidating cases and setting briefing schedule)

Opening Brief for Defendants-Appellants AU Optronics Corporation and AU Optronics Corporation America (Feb. 4, 2013) (Nos. 12-10500, 12-10514, 12-10558)

Brief for Defendants-Appellants Hui Hsiung and Hsuan Bin Chen (Feb. 4, 2013) (Nos. 12-10492 & 12-10493)

Brief for the United States (Apr. 5, 2013) (Nos. 12-10492, 12-10493, 12-10500, 12-10514)

Reply Brief for Defendants-Appellants AU Optronics Corporation and AU Optronics Corporation America (May 13, 2013)

Reply Brief for Defendants-Appellants Hui Hsiung and Hsuan Bin Chen (May 13, 2013)

Argued (Oct. 18, 2013)

Order (Dec. 5, 2013) (granting renewed motion for bail pending appeal and remanding to district court for setting the terms and conditions of the defendants’ release)

Opinion (July 10, 2014)

Defendants-Appellants’ AU Optronics Corporation and AU Optronics Corporation America Petition for Panel Rehearing (Aug. 25, 2014)

Hsuan Bin Chen’s and Hui Hsiung’s Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc (Aug. 25, 2014)

Supreme Court

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Hsiung v. United States, No. 14-1121 (U.S. docketed Mar. 16, 2015)

 

AUO (AT&T Mobility)
(reach of California Cartwright Act)

AT&T Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., No. 11-16188 (9th Cir. docketed May 11, 2011)

Docket sheet (downloaded Dec. 18, 2012)

Appellants' Opening Brief (____) (filed under seal)

Notification of Filing under Seal of (1) Appellants' Opening Brief and (2) Appellants Second Amended Complaint in the Excerpts of Record (Sept. 1, 2011)

Brief of Amicus Curiae The State of California (Sept. 8, 2011)

Appellees’ Joint Answering Brief (Oct. 24, 2011)

Argued (Nov. 9, 2011) (± audio)

Appellants’ Reply Brief (Nov. 22, 2011)

Opinion (Feb. 14, 2013) (reversing the district court’s partial dismissal)

Mandate issued (Mar. 11, 2013)

Lotes

Lotes Co. Ltd. v. Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., No. 12-cv-7465 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 4, 2012)

S.D.N.Y.

Docket sheet (downloaded Dec. 18, 2013)

First Amended Complaint (Dec. 21, 2012) (original complaint filed Oct. 4, 2012)

Notice of Motion (Jan. 11, 2013)

Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Jan. 11, 2013)

Order (Feb. 6, 2013) (denying motion to dismiss without prejudice)

Notice of Motion (Feb. 11, 2013) (filed by Foxconn Electronics, Inc., Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd, Foxconn International, Inc.)

Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Feb. 11, 2013)

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Feb. 25, 2013)

Defendants’ Reply in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Mar. 11, 2013)

Notice of Motion (Apr. 15, 2013) (filed by Foxconn International Holdings Ltd.)

Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Apr. 15, 2013)

Opinion and Order (May 14, 2013) (granting motion to dismiss as to Foxconn Electronics, Inc., Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd, Foxconn International, Inc. and Foxconn International Holdings Ltd. for lack of subject matter jurisdiction)

Judgment (May 20, 2013)

Notice of Appeal (June 10, 2013)

Second Circuit

Lotes Co., Ltd. v. Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., No. 13‐2280 (2d Cir. June 4, 2014) (reported at 753 F.3d 395)

Docket sheet (No. 13-2280) (downloaded June 5, 2014)

Brief for Plaintiff-Appellant (Aug. 26, 2013)

Brief of Defendants-Appellees (Sept. 30, 2013)

Brief for the United States and Federal Trade Commission as Amici Curiae in Support of Defendants-Appellees (Oct. 10, 2013)

Reply Brief for Plaintiff-Appellant (Oct. 15, 2013)

Argument set for Jan. 13, 2014

Opinion (June 4, 2014)

Judgment (June 4, 2014)

Minn-Chem

Opinion, Minn-Chem, Inc. v. Agrium Inc., No. 10-1712 (7th Cir. June 27, 2012) (en banc)

Docket sheet (No. 10-1712) (downloaded July 8, 2012)

Panel decision

Opening Brief for Appellants (Apr. 16, 2010)

Response Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellees (May 7, 2010)

Response Brief of Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs-Appellees (May 7, 2010)

Opening Brief For Appellants (May 13, 2010) (correcting errors as ordered by the court)

Reply Brief for Appellants (May 17, 2010)

± Oral argument (June 3, 2010)

Opinion, Minn-Chem, Inc. v. Agrium Inc., No. 10-1712 (7th Cir. Sept. 23, 2011) (reported at 657 F.3d 650)

Final Judgment (Sept. 23, 2011)

Rehearing en banc

Appellees’ Petition for Rehearing En Banc (Oct. 7, 2011)

Brief for Amicus Curiae American Antitrust Institute Supporting Appellees’ Petition for Rehearing En Banc (Oct. 12, 2011)

Appellants’ Answer to Petition for Rehearing En Banc (Nov. 2, 2011)

Order (Dec. 1, 2011) (granting petition for rehearing en banc)

Brief for the United States and the Federal Trade Commission as Amici Curiae in Support of Neither Party on Rehearing En Banc (Jan. 12, 2012)

Supplemental Brief of Appellants (Jan. 26, 2011) (in response to amicus brief of United States and Federal Trade Commission)

Opinion, Minn-Chem, Inc. v. Agrium Inc., No. 10-1712 (7th Cir. June 27, 2012) (en banc)

Final Judgment (June 27, 2012)

Defendants-Appellants’ Motion for Stay of Mandate Pending the Filing of a Petition for Certiorari (July 3, 2012)

Cert petition

Supreme Court docket sheet (downloaded Oct. 20, 2013)

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (Nov. 23, 2012)

Motion to dismiss the petition for writ of certiorari pursuant to Rule 46 received (July 18, 2013)
(Rule 46 governs dismissals by joint agreement by all of the parties as well as by motion by the petitioner)

Letter of consent to dismissal of the petition for writ of certiorari pursuant to Rule 46 received (July 22, 2013)

Petition Dismissed - Rule 46 (July 22, 2013)

Motorola Mobility

Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief, Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp., No. 1:09-cv-06610 (N.D. Ill. filed Oct. 20, 2009)

Conditional Transfer Order (J.P.M.L. Nov. 5, 2009) (transferring action to the Northern District of California)

Conditional Remand Order (J.P.M.L. July 8, 2013)

Motion for Reconsideration (Sept. 20, 2013) (seeking reconsideration of MDL Panel's summary judgment ruling permitting Motorola to pursue U.S. antitrust claims based on purchases of LCD panels by its foreign subsidiaries)

Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Reconsideration (Sept. 20, 2013) (Exhibits)

Amicus Curiae Brief of Twelve Law Professors in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Oct. 3, 2013)

Plaintiff Motorola Mobility LLC's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Oct. 23, 2013)

Brief of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry of Japan as Amicus Curiae in Support of Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration (Oct. 31, 2013)

Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Reconsideration (Nov. 5, 2013)

Memorandum Opinion & Order, Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp., No. 1:09-cv-06610 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 23, 2014)

Order (Feb. 13, 2014) (entering following order pursuant to stipluations by the parties)

Order (Feb. 13, 2014)

Appeal to Seventh Circuit

Docket sheet (No. 14-8003) (downloaded July2, 2014)

Petition for Interlocutory Appeal (Feb. 24, 2014)

Response to Petition for Interlocutory Appeal (Mar. 10, 2014)

Opinion (Mar. 27, 2014) (granting plaintiff’s unopposed petition for leave to take an interlocutory appeal, dispensing with further briefing and oral argument, and affirming district court's judgment)

Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc (Apr. 24, 2014)

Unopposed Motion of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission for Leave to File the Attached Amicus Brief in Support of Panel Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc (Apr. 24, 2014)

Unopposed Motion of the American Antitrust Institute for Leave to File Brief as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc (Apr. 24, 2014)

Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief of Economists and Professors in Support of Appellant’s Petition For Rehearing En Banc (Apr. 24, 2014)

Order (May 1, 2014) (inviting the United States Department of Commerce and the United States Department of State to file briefs as amici curiae)

Letter from the Solictor General in response (May 19, 2014)

Order (May 22, 2014)

Order (May 23, 2014) (withdrawing order of May 22)

Order (June 2, 2014)

Response to Petition for Rehearing En Banc (May 23, 2014)

Unopposed Motion of the Korea Fair Trade Commission for Leave to File Brief As Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellees’ Opposition to Rehearing En Banc (May 23, 2014)

Appellant’s Motion to File Reply Brief in Support of its Petition for Rehearing En Banc (May 28, 2014)

Appellees’ Opposition to Motion for Leave to File Reply (May 28, 2014)

Order (May 29, 2014) (denying appellant's motion to file reply brief)

Appellant’s Request for Referral to En Banc Court (May 29, 2014)

Order (June 30, 2014) (granting motion to reconsider ial of leave to file reply brief for rehearing en banc)

Motion of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Republic of China, Taiwan For Leave to File Letter as Amicus Curiae to Express Its Views Regarding Application of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvement Act (May 29, 2014)

Supplemental Brief for the United Statesas Amicus Curiae (June 27, 2014)

Order (July 1, 2014) (deciding to rehear case)

Order (Sept. 2, 2014) (denying petition for rehearing en banc)

Brief for the United Statesand the Federal Trade Commissionas Amici Curiae in Support of Neither Party (Sept. 5, 2014)

Brief of the American Antitrust Institute as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellant (Sept. 5, 2014)

± Oral argument (Nov. 13, 2014)

Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., No. 14-8003 (7th Cir. Nov. 26, 2014)

Supreme Court

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Motorola Mobility, LLC v. AU Optronics, No. 14-1122 (U.S. docketed Mar. 16, 2015)

Vitamin C litigation
(including Animal Science)

Third Amended Complaint for Antitrust Violations, Animal Sci. Prods., Inc. v. Hebel Welcome Pharm. Co., No. 1 :05-CV- 00453(DGT)(JO) (E.D.N.Y. filed Dec. 2, 2008)

Docket sheet (downloaded Oct. 19, 2013)
Docket sheet No. 1:06-md-01738 (downloaded July 17, 2014)

Letter to Judge Trager (Dec. 2, 2008)
Comparison of Second and Third Amended Complaints

Motion to Dismiss by North China Pharmaceutical Group (Mar. 27, 2009) (filed under seal)

Memorandum Decision and Order (July 18, 2012) (granting in part and denying in part NCPG defendants' motion to dismiss)

China Pharmaceutical Group Ltd.'s Notice of Motion and Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment (Nov. 20, 2009)

China Pharmaceutical Group Ltd.'s Memorandum of Law in Support of Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment (Aug. 31, 2009)

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to China Pharmaceutical Group Ltd.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Nov. 20, 2009) (filed under seal)

Reply Memorandum In Support of China Pharmaceutical Group Ltd.'s Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment (Nov. 20, 2009)

Memorandum Decision and Order (July 18, 2012) (denying Motion for Summary Judgment and denying Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction)

Motion for Summary Judgment by Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., (Nov. 23, 2009)

Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, for Determination of Foreign Law and Entry of Judgment Pursuant To Rule 44.1, Fed. R. Civ. P. (Nov. 23, 2009)

Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, for Determination of Foreign Law and Entry Of Judgment (Oct. 16, 2009; docketed Nov. 23, 2009)

Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, for Determination of Foreign Law and Entry Of Judgment Pursuant to Rule 44.1, Fed. R. Civ. P. (Nov. 23, 2009)

Plaintiffs’ Sur-Reply Opposing Summary Judgment and Determination of Foreign Law (Jan. 19, 2010)

Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Sur-Reply Opposing Summary Judgment and Determination Of Foreign Law (Feb. 5, 2010)

Memorandum Decision and Order (Septe. 1, 2011; docketed Sept. 6, 2011) (denying motion for summary judgment)

Defendants' Motion for Certification of the Court's September 1, 2011 Order for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1292(b) (Nov. 11, 2011)

Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion for Certification of the Court's September 1, 2011 Order for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1292(b) (Nov. 11, 2011)

Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Certification of the Court’s September 1, 2011 Order for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (Nov. 30, 2011)

Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Certification of the Court’s September 1, 2011 Order for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (Dec. 12, 2011)

Memorandum Decision and Order (Feb. 9, 2012) (denying motion for interlocutory appeal)

Memorandum Decision and Order (June 4, 2012) denying motion by Northeast Pharmaceutical Co. for summary judgment)

Non-Settling Defendants’ Notice of Filing of Affidavit of Qiao Haili Pursuant to the Court’s Order of July 11, 2012 and Statement Thereon (Aug. 8, 2012)

Affidavit of Qiao Haili Pursuant to the Court Order of July 11, 2012

Memorandum and Decision (Aug. 8, 2012)

Memorandum Decision and Order (Nov. 19, 2012) (denying motions to dismiss the foreign purchaser claims, strike evidence related to the foreign purchaser claims, and strike evidence of purchases from Hualong and Tiger)

Order (Oct. 5, 2012) (resetting trial to begin January 14, 2013)

Special Verdict Form (Mar. 14, 2013) (finding for plaintiffs with actual damages of $54.1 million)

Judgment (Mar. 14, 2013)

 

Defendants' Notice of Motion and Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (Apr. 11, 2013) (No. 688)

Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law to Reduce Damages by $7.5 Million (before Trebling) Due to Speculation, Guess and Surmise As to Co-Conspirator Sales (Apr. 11, 2013)

Defendants' Notice of Motion and Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) Based on Act of State and Foreign Sovereign Compulsion and International Comity (Apr. 11, 2013) (No. 691)

Memorandum of Law In Support of Defendants Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.’s and North China Pharmaceutical Group Corporation's Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Based on Act of State, Foreign Sovereign Compulsion, and International Comity (Apr. 11, 2013)

North China Pharmaceutical Group Corp.’s Notice of Motion and Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) (Apr. 11, 2013) (No. 689)

Memorandum of Law in Support of North China Pharmaceutical Group Corp.'s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Apr. 11, 2013)

ORDER in case 1:05-cv-00453-BMC-JO; terminating (689) Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law; terminating (691) Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law in case 1:06-md-01738-BMC-JO. Rule 50(b) provides that a party may file "a" renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law; it does not provide that a party may file three motions for judgment as a matter of law. It is unclear why defendants felt the need to file three motions instead of one motion with their different grounds for relief. The latter two motions are therefore terminated. The court will consider the grounds raised in those motions as part of its determination of motion 688. Defendant is directed not to refile. Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 4/12/2013. Associated Cases: 1:06-md-01738-BMC-JO, 1:05-cv-00453-BMC-JO (Cogan, Brian) (Entered: 04/12/2013)

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (May 10, 2013)

Memorandum Decision and Order (Nov. 26, 2013) (denying defendant's motion for jmol and granting plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief)

Amended Judgment and Final Decree (Nov. 27, 2013)

Notice of Appeal (Dec. 23, 2013)

 

Second Circuit

In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litig., No. 13-4791 (2d Cir. docketed Dec. 23, 2013) (appealing the denial of the defendants' initial motion to dismiss, In re Vitamin C Antitrust Antitrust Litig., 584 F. Supp. 2d 546 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (Trager, J.), a subsequent denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment, In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litig., 810 F. 8 Supp. 2d 522 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (Cogan, J.),1 and, after a jury trial, entry of judgment awarding Ppaintiffs approximately $147 million in damages and enjoining the defendants from engaging in future anti]competitive behavior)

Page Proof Brief for Defendants-Appellants (Apr. 7, 2014)

Brief for Amicus Curiae Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China in Support of Defendants-Appellants (Apr. 14, 2014)

Page Proof Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellees (July 7, 2014)
Final Form Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellees (Aug. 11, 2014)

Final Reply Brief for Defendants-Appellants (Aug. 11, 2014)

Opinion (Sept. 20, 2016) (vacating the judgment, reversing the district court's denial of defendents' motion to dismiss, and remainding with instructions to dismiss the complaint with prejudice)

25. Joint ventures