Shearman & Sterling LLP | Antitrust Blog | Home | Tying
Antitrust Litigation
This links to the home page

FILTERS
  • Tech Start-Up’s Monopoly Suit Moves Forward Against Utilities Management Power Player
     
    10/26/2021

    On September 30, 2021, Judge Amy Totenberg of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied a utilities management company’s motion to dismiss state and federal antitrust and tortious interference claims.  Lucasys Inc. v. Powerplan, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-02987 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 2021).  Plaintiff alleges five counts of antitrust violations by defendant under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, for unlawful restraint of trade and monopoly maintenance via negative tying, the concerted refusal to deal with plaintiff and other market competitors by denying access to software and data needed to develop competing products, and de facto exclusive dealing provisions in contracts with utilities.  The Court found that plaintiff had sufficiently pled its claims at the motion to dismiss stage and declined to grant defendant’s motion to dismiss.
  • California Superior Court Sends Healthcare Pricing Case To Trial
     
    06/25/2019

    On June 18, 2019, California Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo issued an order denying Sutter Health’s motion for summary judgment on the alleged California antitrust claims concerning allegedly anticompetitive provisions in Sutter Health’s vendor contracts. See UFCW & Employers Benefit Trust, et al. v. Sutter Health, et al., CGC-14-538451 (Sup. Ct. Cal. 2014).
     
  • District Court Rejects Motion To Dismiss Antitrust Claims In Data Analytics Joint Venture
     
    01/08/2019

    On December 12, 2018, Judge William H. Orrick of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motion to dismiss on a variety of trade secret, antitrust, and copyright claims.  Teradata Corporation, et al., v. SAP SE, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-03670 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2018).  The Court agreed with defendants that the trade secret claims required additional specificity, but found the remaining claims, including those based on copyright and antitrust grounds, to be sufficiently pled.