Search for: "Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois" Results 1 - 20 of 78
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
The suit was brought under the Cartwright Act instead of the federal antitrust laws because smartphone owners are indirect purchasers of smartphone chips and are barred from suit by the US Supreme Court’s decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
29 Oct 2020, 10:39 am by John Elwood
Ninth Inning, Inc., 19-1098Issues: (1) Whether an agreement among the members of a joint venture on how best to distribute the venture’s jointly created core product may be condemned under the Sherman Act without requiring the plaintiff to establish that defendants harmed competition in a properly defined antitrust market; and (2) whether, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
14 Oct 2020, 2:32 pm by John Elwood
Ninth Inning, Inc., 19-1098Issues: (1) Whether an agreement among the members of a joint venture on how best to distribute the venture’s jointly created core product may be condemned under the Sherman Act without requiring the plaintiff to establish that defendants harmed competition in a properly defined antitrust market; and (2) whether, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
7 Oct 2020, 3:23 pm by John Elwood
Van Dyke, 19-1272Issue: Whether, under the doctrine of Erie Railroad Co. v. [read post]
6 Aug 2020, 1:50 pm
  (…) It is undisputed that, if the Anti-Assignment Provision prevents the assignment, then, under the Supreme Court’s seminal decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
15 Mar 2020, 12:28 pm by Bona Law PC
The Co-Conspirator Exception to Illinois Brick For the Court to apply Illinois Brick, it must determine which entity is the seller and which entity is the direct purchaser. [read post]
8 Mar 2020, 10:28 am by Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle
The panel then found that the customer-plaintiffs in the J&S suit lacked standing to sue for damages under Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
22 Aug 2019, 1:28 pm
Apple moved to dismiss, arguing that the iPhone owners could not sue be­cause they were not direct purchasers from Apple under Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
12 Jun 2019, 6:09 am by Florian Mueller
The key antitrust issue here is this: Illinois Brick doesn't give indirect purchasers (here, the consumers bought phones, but the makers of those devices paid patent royalties to Qualcomm) standing to seek damages under federal antitrust laws; but many states have, as some say, "repealed" (or one might also say "worked around") Illinois Brick by allowing such claims under state competition laws. [read post]
23 May 2019, 7:23 am by Thomas Baer
They supported their argument with the Supreme Court decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
16 May 2019, 12:15 pm by Eric Caligiuri
As an early defense in the case, Apple asserted that the consumer plaintiffs could not sue Apple because they supposedly were not “direct purchasers” from Apple under Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
14 May 2019, 1:20 pm by Sasha Volokh
The Illinois Brick rule and the basic debate in this case First, you need to know the basic debate, which is how to characterize the antitrust standing rule of Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
13 May 2019, 9:53 am by Amy Howe
The lower court relied on a 1977 case called Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]