What You Should Know About Trinity Lutheran v. Comer An Amicus Podcast Transcript. Find and compare Legal Document Management software. Free, interactive tool to quickly narrow your choices and contact multiple vendors. Google is stepping up its effort to block phishing attempts that use app permissions to gain access to users Gmail accounts. These phishing attacks invite users to. Get the latest news and analysis in the stock market today, including national and world stock market news, business news, financial news and more. Prepaid Legal Services Complaint Review Prepaid Legal Services Fing ripoff Ada Oklahoma. Here is a roundup of the best accounting software for your law firm, a list that includes AbacusLaw, Amicus Attorney, Bill4Time, Clio, and more. COURT DECISIONS. Concerning The NYS Workers Compensation Board. December 31, 2015 There are no decisions from the Third Department this week but seven new cases have. Archives and past articles from the Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia Daily News, and Philly. News from the Antitrust, UCL and Privacy Section. From the December 2. E Brief From the November 2. E Brief. From the October 2. E Brief. From the September 2. E Brief. From the July 2. E Brief. From the June 2. E Brief. From the May 2. Part 2 E Brief. From the May 2. E Brief. From the April 2. E Brief. From the January 2. E Brief. From the November 2. E Brief. From the October 2. Buku Kesehatan Lingkungan Pdf Editor. E Brief. From the September 2. E Brief. From the August 2. E Brief. From the December 2. E Brief. Central District of Claifornia Denies Motion to Dismiss Sherman Act Claim Based on Aspen Skiing Theory. Trevor V. Stockinger. Kesselman Brantly Stockinger LLPOn July 1. Judge Otis D. Wright, II of the Central District of California denied a motion to dismiss concerning, among others, a Sherman Act Section 2 claim based on a duty to deal theory. Packaging Systems v. PRC Desoto International, Inc., 2. U. S. Dist. LEXIS 1. C. D. Cal. July 1. This opinion is significant because it continues to breathe life into monopolization claims based on Aspen Skiing Co. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 4. U. S. 5. 85 1. 98. Background This case involved the market for aerospace sealant for use on military and commercial aircraft. Defendants PPG entities manufactured and distributed sealant both at wholesale to resellers and at retail to aircraft maintenance companies as part of injection kits, which made it easier and more efficient to apply the sealant. Since 1. 97. 6, Plaintiff Packaging Systems purchased sealant at wholesale and sold injection kits with pre filled sealant. It had purchased and sold injection kits using PPGs sealant since 2. Packaging Systems alleged that over the years, PPG had attempted to blunt competition, including by trying to acquire Packaging Systems and telling end users that non PPG resellers, like Packaging Systems, were not authorized to repackage PPG sealant. In August 2. 01. 6, PPG sent a memo to all of its sealant resellers stating that it prohibited the repackaging of its sealant by anyone but PPG owned resellers. PPG claimed that the policy was necessary to ensure the sealants quality for end users. Packaging Systems brought suit alleging claims under Sherman Act Section 2 for violation of a duty to deal, the Sherman and Cartwright Acts for tying, Californias price discrimination law, Californias Unfair Competition Law, and interference with prospective economic advantage. Duty to Deal Claim Packaging Systems asserted a Sherman Act Section 2 claim based on a violation of an antitrust duty to deal. U. S. Dist. LEXIS 1. The court first observed that refusing to deal with a competitor is generally not considered anticompetitive. Id. And, it acknowledged that Packaging Systems theory, based on the Supreme Courts Aspen Skiing Co., is at or near the outer boundary of 2 liability. Id. Verizon Communications Inc. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 5. 40 U. S. 3. 98, 4. 07 2. Nonetheless, following Trinko and Metro. Net Services Corp. Qwest Corp., 3. 83 F. Cir. 2. 00. 4, the court set out three facts critical to establishing liability for an anticompetitive refusal to deal under Aspen Skiing. U. S. Dist. LEXIS 1. First, the defendant terminated a prior profitable course of dealing with plaintiff. Id. Second, the defendant refused to sell to plaintiff even at retail prices. Id. Third, the product that the defendant refused to sell to plaintiff was one it already sold to other customers. Id. at. 3. It noted that the first two factors suggested that the defendant elected to forego short run benefits because of an interest in reducing competition in the long run. Id. at. 2 1. 3. It further observed that the third factor ensured that remedying the alleged antitrust violation would not require the Court to create from scratch the terms on which the defendant must deal with the plaintiff. Id. After discussing the three facts, the court specifically remarked in a footnote that neither the Supreme Court nor the Ninth Circuit has expressly stated that the three facts are indispensable elements of all 2 claims arising from a refusal to deal. Id. Nonetheless, the court stated it did not need to resolve the issue because Packaging Systems had plausibly alleged facts supporting each of the three factors. In reviewing the allegations, the Court appears to have interpreted these three facts broadly. First, it held PPG had engaged in a voluntary, profitable course of conduct with Packaging Systems because it had sold sealant to Packaging Systems since 2. Id. at. 3. It rejected PPGs argument that PPGs periodic comments to Packaging Systems customers that Packaging Systems was not supposed to repackage PPGs sealant was enough to show PPG always prohibited repackaging. Id. at. 3 1. 4 n. Bejeweled 2 Zip. Instead, the court said that the allegations evinced that PPG had taken no real steps to prevent Plaintiff from repackaging and that this tacit acceptance of Plaintiffs repackaging is in principle no different from the joint venture at issue in Aspen Skiing. Id. It held the second factor was met because PPG is willing to sell sealant to end users at a particular price but will not sell the same sealant to resellers at the same price or at any price. Id. It also rejected PPGs claims that the policy was necessary to ensure quality. It relied on the allegations that PPG had tolerated repackaging for 1. PPGs own repackaging resellers were using the same repackaging methods they used before PPG acquired them. Id. at. 5. It also noted that PPGs refusal to discuss specific quality problems with Packaging Systems adds to the inference of an anticompetitive motive. Id. at. 5 n. 7. Finally, it held the third factor was met not only because PPG still sold sealant at wholesale to non repackaging resellers, but also because PPG sold to repackagers, like Packaging Systems, for years. Id. at. 5. As a consequence, the Court would not need to develop the remedy from scratch. Id. at. 5 1. 6.   Thus, the court denied the motion to dismiss. Conclusion The Packaging Systems decision suggests that duty to deal violations may still have teeth. This may be the case even where the allegations are somewhat ambiguous and raise defenses. That said, despite its broad reading of the case law and the complaints allegations, it is important to note that the court was only addressing the plausibility of the claims on a motion to dismiss. Indeed, the court noted that the claim survives for now. Id. It is likely that many of the arguments raised by the defendant will be addressed anew on summary judgment. Stay tuned. Plantronics Overcomes Summary Judgment Loss and Sanctions Order to Prevail at Trial in Exclusive Dealing Case. Alphasim Freeware Aircraft. Peter Huston. Sidley Austin LLPIn a five year antitrust battle between two competing manufacturers of telephone headsets, plaintiff GN Netcom navigated the case past a motion to dismiss, defeated defendant Plantronics motion for summary judgment and notched a 3 million sanction and favorable jury instruction against Plantronics for spoliation. GN Netcom could not, however, get the case across the finish line. A jury decided the case in Plantronicss favor after just over an hour of deliberation, denying GN Netcom the hundreds of millions of dollars in damages it sought.