Dale Collins
Georgetown University Law Center
NB: "±" indicates that the hyperlink will take you to another site.
Reading and class notes
Significant precedents
Tunica Web Advertising
Apple iPod antitrust litigation
The "right to repair"
Reference materials
Case studies
Primary Materials
Supplemental Materials
Reading and Class Notes
Reading and class notes
Significant Precedents
Unilateral refusals to deal
United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300 (1919)
District court
Indictment, United States v. Colgate & Co. (E.D. Va. returned Dec. 18, 1917) (print)
Indictment, United States v. Colgate & Co. (D.N.J. returned Mar. 24, 1920) (ultimately a directed verdict was entered for the defendant)
United States v. Colgate & Co., 253 F. 522 (E.D.Va. Oct 29, 1918)
Supreme Court
Brief for the United States (Feb. 15, 1919)
Brief for Colgate & Company, Defendant-in-Error (Feb. 26, 1919)
aff'd, United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300 (1919)
Lorain Journal Co. v. United States, 342 U.S. 143 (1951)
District court
Complaint, United States v. Lorain Journal Co., Civ. No. 26823 (N.D. Ohio filed Sept. 22, 1949) (Blue Book No. 991)
United States v. Lorain Journal Co., 92 F. Supp. 794 (N.D. Ohio Aug 29, 1950)
Supreme Court
Brief for Appellants (Sept. 1951)
Brief for the United States (Oct __, 1951)
aff'd, Lorain Journal Co. v. United States, 342 U.S. 143 (1951)
United States v. Parke, Davis & Co., 362 U.S. 29 (1960) (± Oyez)
District court
Indictment, United States v. Parke, Davis & Co., Cr. 444-57 (D.D.C filed May 2, 1957) (Blue Book No. 1339)
Complaint, United States v. Parke, Davis & Co., Civ. No. 1064-57 (D.D.C filed May 2, 1957) (Blue Book No. 1340)
United States v. Parke, Davis & Co., 164 F. Supp. 827 (D.D.C. Jul 16, 1958) (Civ. No. 1064-57)
Supreme Court
rev'd, United States v. Parke, Davis & Co., 362 U.S. 29 (1960)
Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 (1985) (± Oyez)
District court
Complaint, Aspen Highland Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., Civ. A. No. 79-Z-1012 (D. Colo. filed Aug. 1, 1979)
Amended Complaint, Aspen Highland Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co.,Civ. A. No. 79-Z-1012 (D. Colo. filed Jan. 26, 1981)
Jury instructions (June 18, 1981)
Special Interrogatories to the Jury (June 22, 1981)
Judgment (June 19, 1981)
Injunction (Aug. 4, 1981)
Final Judgment (Feb. 10, 1982)
Tenth Circuit
Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509 (10th Cir. 1984)
Supreme Court
Brief for Petitioner (Jan. 24, 1985)
Brief for Respondent (Feb. 28, 1985)
Reply Brief for Petitioner (Mar. 20, 1985)
aff'd, 472 U.S. 585 (1985).
Verizon Commc'ns Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398 (2004)
District court
Docket sheet (downloaded Dec. 31, 2014)
Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 123 F. Supp. 2d 738 (S.D.N.Y. Dec 6, 2000) (No. 00 CIV. 1910)
Second Circuit
aff'd in part, vacated in part, Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 294 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. June 20, 2002) (No. 01-7746)
amended and superseded, Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, L.L.P. v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 305 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. Aug 30, 2002)
Separate opinion, Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, L.L.P. v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 309 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. Aug 30, 2002) (Sack, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part)
Supreme Court
Brief for Petitioner (May 23, 2003)
Brief for the United States and the Federal Trade Commission as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner
Brief for Respondent (July 29, 2003)
Reply Brief for Petitioner (Aug. 27, 2003)
rev'd and remanded, Verizon Commc'ns Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398 (2004)
Complaint and termination
Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc., 359 U.S. 207 (1959) (± Oyez)
District court
Ninth Circuit
Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc., 255 F.2d 214 (9th Cir. Mar 28, 1958) (No. 15380)
Supreme Court
Petition for Certiorari
Memorandum for the Untied States as Amicus Curiae (Sept. 3, 1958)
Brief for Respondents in Reply to Memorandum for the United States as Amicus Curiae (Sept. 24, 1958)
Merits
Petitioner's Opening Brief (Nov. 26, 1958)
Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae (Dec. 5, 1958)
Brief for Respondents (Dec. 29, 1958)
Petitioner's Reply Brief (Feb. 21, 1959)
rev'd, Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc., 359 U.S. 207 (1959)
Monsanto Co. v. Spray Rite Service Corp., 465 U.S. 752 (1984) (± Oyez)
Business Elecs. Corp. v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 485 U.S. 717 (1988) (± Oyez)
Apple iPod Litigation
Consolidated complaint
Consolidated Complaint for Violations of Sherman Antitrust Act, Clayton Act, Cartwright Act, California Unfair Competition Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and California Common Law of Monopolization, In re Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litig., No. 4:05-cv-00037 (N.D. Cal. filed Apr. 19, 2007) (original complaint filed Jan. 1, 2005)
Docket sheet (downloaded Oct. 10. 2015)
± Apple, Press Release, Apple Announces iTunes 7 with Amazing New Features (Sept. 12, 2007)
± Steve Jobs, Thoughts on Music (Feb. 6, 2007)
± Stephen Seawright, Warner hits out at Jobs, The Telegraph.com, Feb. 9, 2007
Summary judgment on tying claims
Amended consolidated complaint
Amended Consolidated Complaint for Violations of Sherman Antitrust Act, Clayton Act, Cartwright Act, California Unfair Competition Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and California Common Law Of Monopolization, In re Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litig., No. 4:05-cv-00037 (N.D. Cal. filed Jan. 26, 2010)
Defendant Apple Inc.’s First Amended Answer and Defenses to Plaintiffs’ Amended Consolidated Complaint (Sept. 24, 2010)
Motions to dismiss and for summary judgment
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss; Denying as Premature Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment; Granting Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff Leave to File an Amended Complaint (June 29, 2010) (among other things, dismissing plaintiffs’ Cartwright Act, CLRA, and Common Law Monopolization claims with prejudice) (reported at 2010 WL 2629907)
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment; Denying As Premature Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (May 19, 2011) (reported at 796 F.Supp.2d 1137)
Class certification
Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (Nov. 22, 2011) (reported at 2011 WL 5864036)
Earlier motion for decertification
Defendant’s Motion for Decertification of Rule 23(b)(3) Class (Aug. 31, 2009)
Expert Report of Dr. Michelle M. Burtis (Aug. 31, 2009)
Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Decertification of Rule 23(b)(3) Class (Oct. 19, 2009)
Reply Declaration of Roger G. Noll (Oct. 19, 2009)
Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion for Decertification of Rule 23(b)(3) Class (Nov. 9, 2009)
Reply Expert Report of Dr. Michelle M. Burtis (Nov. 9, 2009)
Order Decertifying Classes Without Prejudice to Being Renewed; Inviting Further Motions (Dec. 21, 2009)
Summary judgment
Defendant’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment and to Exclude Expert Testimony of Roger G. Noll (Dec. 21, 2013)
Order Denying: (1) Defendant's Combined Motion for Summary Judgment and Daubert Motion; (2) Plaintiffs' Dauber Motion; and (3) Plaintiffs' motion To Strike Expert Report (Sept. 26, 2014) (reported at 2014 WL 4809288)
Corrected Joint Case Management Conference Statement (Apr. 1, 2013)
Updated Joint Case Management Conference Statement (Jan. 1, 2014)
Trial
Started Dec. 1, 2014
Notice of Motion and Motion to Grant Judgment as a Matter of Law in Favor of Defendant Apple Inc. (Dec. 10, 2014) (filed at the close of the plaintiffs' case in chief)
Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion to Grant Judgment as a Matter of Law in Favor of Defendant Apple Inc. (Dec. 13, 204)
Reply of Apple Inc. in Support of Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Dec. 14, 2014)
Letter from William A. Isaacson (Counsel for Apple) regarding Proposed Jury Instructions (Nov. 22, 2014)
Letter from Bonny E. Sweeney (Class Counsel) regarding Proposed Jury Instructions (Dec. 10, 2014)
Final Jury Instructions re Genuine Product Improvement (Dec. 15, 2014)
Verdict Form re Genuine Product Improvement (Dec. 16, 2014)
Judgment (Jan. 5, 2015)
Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion to Appoint Barbara Bennett as Class Representative (Dec. 11, 2014)
Apple Inc.’s Opposition to Motion to Intervene Barbara Bennett As a Class Representative (Dec. 13, 2014)
Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Appoint Barbara Bennett As Class Representative (Dec. 14, 2014)
Trial Civil Minutes
Monday, December 1, 2014
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Thursday, December 4, 2014
Friday, December 5, 2014
Monday, December 8, 2014
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Thursday, December 11, 2014
Friday, December 12, 2014 (evidence closes)
Monday, December 15, 2014
Tuesday, December 16, 2014 (jury renders verdict)
Jury Notes (filed Dec. 18, 2014)
Commentary
± Joe Mullin, Apple on trial: Were iTunes updates really an anti-consumer scheme?, arstechnica.com, Dec. 2, 2014.
± Nick Statt, Apple misled iPod owners, plaintiffs allege at class action trial, CNET.com, Dec. 2, 2014.
± Brian X. Chen, In a Bay Area Courtroom, Lawyers Hit Replay on Apple’s History, NYTimes.com, Dec. 3, 2014.
± Nick Statt, Apple defended iPod from hackers, iTunes chief says in antitrust trial, CNET.com, Dec. 4, 2014.
± Joe Mullin, Apple on trial: company execs say DRM was forced on them by record labels, arstechnica.com, Dec. 5, 2014.
± Steve Jobs, Thoughts on Music (Feb. 6, 2007)
± Stephen Seawright, Warner hits out at Jobs, The Telegraph.com, Feb. 9, 2007
± Brian X. Chen, Videotaped Deposition of Steve Jobs Played in Apple iPod Trial, NYTimes.com, Dec. 5, 2014.
Videotaped Deposition of Steve Jobs (Apr. 12, 2011) (transcript)
± Nick Statt, Want to Watch One of the Last Videos of Steve Jobs? too Bad, CNET.com, Dec. 5, 2014.
± Nick Statt, Steve Jobs: iPod, iTunes competitors were 'collateral damage', CNET.com, Dec. 5, 2014.
Tunica Web Advertising
Complaint
Amended complaint, Tunica Web Advertising, Inc. v. Barden Mississippi Gaming, LLC, NO. 2:03CV234-P-D (N.D. Miss. filed Feb. 11, 2005)
Docket sheet (downloaded Oct. 23, 2009)
Summary judgment
Order granting summary judgment (Dec. 21, 2005)
Memorandum Opinion granting summary judgment (N.D. Miss. Dec. 19, 2005)
Partial Final Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)
Plaintiffs' Motion (and Supporting Memorandum) for Determination and Finding Pursuant to FRCP 54(B) or in the Alternative for Interlocutory Appeal (Jan. 19, 2006)
Partial Final Judgment (N.D. Miss. Feb. 7, 2006) (order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's Motion for Determination and Finding Pursuant to FRCP Rule 54(b) or in the Alternative for Interlocutory Appeal. Denied as to motion for interlocutory appeal; granted with regard to motion for partial final judgment. Claims of Cherry Graziosi, in her individual capacity, are dismissed. Defendants' counterclaims remain.)
Notice of appeal
Plaintiffs' Notice of Appeal (Mar. 8, 2006)
Appeal
Tunica Web Advertising v. Tunica Casino Operators Ass'n, No. 06-60305 (5th Cir. Aug. 13, 2007) (reversing and remanding partial final judgment). Reported as Tunica Web Advertising v. Tunica Casino Operators Ass'n, 496 F.3d 403 (5th Cir. 2007)
On remand
Notice of reversal and remand (Sept. 6, 2007)
Summary judgment
Defendants' Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (Oct. 25, 2007)
Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Oct. 25, 2007)
Hollywood Casino’s Renewed Motion For Summary Judgment (Oct. 25, 2007)
Memorandum of Authorities in Support of Hollywood Casino’s Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (Oct. 25, 2007)
Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Casino Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (Nov. 21, 2007)
Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Casino Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (Nov. 23, 2007)
Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Hollywood Casino's Separate Motion for Summary Judgment (Nov. 23, 2007)
Stipulated dismissal
Agreed Judgment of Dismissal with Prejudice (June 3, 2008)
Summary judgment
Order Denying Summary Judgment (N.D. Miss. Aug. 11, 2008)
Memorandum Opinion Denying Summary Judgment (N.D. Miss., Aug. 11, 2008) (2008 WL 3539731)
Trial
Jury trial began on Aug. 18, 2008
Settlement
Order Dismissing Action by Reason of Settlement (N.D. Miss. Aug. 22, 2008)
Reference Materials
Significant unilateral refusal to deal precedents
United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300 (1919)
Compare United States v. Parke, Davis & Co., 362 U.S. 29 (1960)
Lorain Journal Co. v. United States, 342 U.S. 143 (1951)
± Official Airline Guides, Inc. v. FTC, 630 F.2d 920 (2d Cir. 1980)
Dealer terminations following competitor complaint
Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc., 359 U.S. 207 (1959) (± Oyez)
Monsanto Co. v. Spray Rite Service Corp., 465 U.S. 752 (1984) (± Oyez)
Business Elecs. Corp. v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 485 U.S. 717 (1988) (± Oyez)
Miles Distribs., Inc. v. Specialty Constr. Brands, Inc., No. 06-1992 (7th Cir. Feb. 6, 2007) (reported as 476 F.3d 442)
U.S. Horticultural Supply, Inc. v. Scotts Co., Civ. A. No. 04-5182 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 13, 2009), aff'd, No. 09-1231 (6th Cir. Mar. 4, 2010) (unpublished)
Horizontality requirement
NYNEX Corp. v. Discon, Inc., 525 U.S. 128 (1998) (± Oyez)
Horizontal group boycotts—Primary
Eastern States Retail Lumbers Dealers Ass'n v. United States, 234 U.S. 600 (1914)
Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1 (1945)
Northwest Wholesale Stationers, Inc. v. Pacific Stationery & Printing Co., 472 U.S. 284 (1985) (± Oyez)
Horizontal group boycotts—Secondary
United States v. General Motors Corp., 384 U.S. 127 (1966) (± Oyez)
Summit Health Ltd. v. Pinhas, 500 U.S. 322 (1991) (± Oyez)
± Toys "R" Us, Inc. v. FTC, 221 F.3d 928 (7th Cir. 2000)
F.M. Scherer, Retailer-Instigated Restraints on Suppliers' Sales: Toys "R" Us (2000), in The Antitrust Revolution 441 (John E. Kwoka, Jr. & Lawrence J. White eds., 5th ed. 2009).
Other boycotts
± Missouri v. Nat'l Org. for Women, 620 F.2d 1301 (8th Cir. 1980)
FTC v. Superior Ct. Trial Lawyers Ass'n, 493 U.S. 411 (1990)
Aspen
Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 (1985) (± Oyez) (jury instructions)
George Priest & Jonathan Lewinsohn, Aspen Skiing: Product Differentiation and Thwarting Free Riding as Monopolization, in Antitrust Stories 229 (Eleanor M. Fox & Daniel A. Crane eds., 2007)
NB: In 2001, Aspen Skiing Co. acquired Highlands
See Order, Safeway Inc. v. Abbott Labs., Nos. C 07-05470 CW, (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2010) (reported at 2010 WL 147988) (denying motion to dismiss)
Docket sheet (downloaded Mar. 13, 2010)
Second Amended Complaint (Aug. 13, 2009)
Notice of Motion and Omnibus Motion to Dismiss Antitrust Claims in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaints Pursuant to Rule 12(B)(6) (Sept. 10, 2009)
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Abbott’s Omnibus Motion to Dismiss Antitrust Claims (Sept. 24, 2009) (Exhibit 1)
Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Abbott’s Omnibus Motion to Dismiss (Oct. 20, 2009)
Plaintiffs’ Joint Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Abbott’s Omnibus Motion to Dismiss Antitrust Claims (Oct. 27, 2009)
Order (Jan. 12, 2010) (denying motion to dismiss)
Amended Notice of Motion and Motion to Certify Issues for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (Feb. 11, 2010)
Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to Abbott’s Motion to Certify Issues for Interlocutory Appeal (Feb. 25, 2010)
Reply Memorandum in Support of Abbott’s Motion to Certify Issues for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (Mar. 4, 2010)
Essential facilities doctrine
Stephen M. Maurer & Suzanne Scotchmer, The Essential Facilities Doctrine: The Lost Message of Terminal Railroad (2014)
Spencer Weber Waller, Areeda, Epithets, and Essential Facilities, 2008 Wis. L. Rev. 359 (2008)
Robert Pitofsky, Donna Patterson & Jonathan Hooks, The Essential Facilities Doctrine Under United States Antitrust Law (2002)
Philip J. Areeda, Essential Facilities: An Epithet in Need of Limiting Principles, 58 Antitrust L.J. 841 (1989)
The "right to repair"
FTC v. Deere & Co.
(NB: Some of these documents may pertain to In re Deere Repair Servs. Antitrust Litig., No. 3:22-cv-50188 (N.D. Ill.))
Complaint, FTC v. Deere & Co., No. 3:25-cv-50017 (N.D. Ill. filed Jan. 15, 2025) (assigned to Judge Iain D. Johnston)
Statement of Chair Lina M. Khan (Jan. 15, 2025)
Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson, Joined by Commissioner Melissa Holyoak (Jan. 15, 2025)
Joint Motion for Entry of Proposed Agreed Confidentiality Order (Feb. 7, 2025)
Joint Status Report (Feb. 7, 2025) (regarding the re-production of potentially confidential documents obtained by the FTC in the course of its pre-complaint investigation and the proposed case schedule)
Amended Complaint (Feb. 7, 2025) (adding Arizona and Wisconsin as party-plaintiffs and related state counts)
Redline against original complaint
Joint Motion for Entry of an Order Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) (Feb. 28, 2025)
Order (Mar. 3, 2025)
Joint Rule 26(f) Report (Feb. 28, 2025)
Defendant Deere & Company’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (Mar. 17, 2025; public version Mar. 17, 2025)
Defendant Deere & Company’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Mar. 17, 2025)
Defendant Deere & Company’s Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Mar. 17, 2025)
Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Apr. 28, 2025)
Defendant Deere & Company’s Reply Brief in Support of its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (May 28, 2025)
Memoradum Opinion and Order (June 9, 2025) (denying Deere's motion for judgment on the pleadings)
Joint Motion for Entry of a Proposed Agreed Confidentiality Order (Mar. 17, 2025)
Confidentiality Order (Mar. 26, 2025)
Notice of Agreed-To Joint Protocol for Production of Documents and Electronically Stored Information (Mar. 24, 2025)
Exhibit A. Joint Protocol for Production of Documents and Electronically Stored Information (“Protocol”) (Mar. 24, 2025)
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Iain D. Johnston: Status hearing held on 3/26/2025. Case management deadlines set as follows: Close of fact discovery set for 1/26/2026; the parties' Rule 26(a)(2)(C) disclosures due 12/15/2025; the deadline for affirmative initial expert reports due 3/2/2026; the deadline for the rebuttal expert reports due 7/1/2026. Maximum of 4 affirmative experts per side and 4 rebuttal experts per side. The deadline to complete expert depositions is set for 9/9/2026. Daubert motions shall be filed by 10/5/2026. Responses to the motions are due 11/16/2026 and replies due 12/8/2026. The deadline to complete all depositions will be discussed at the April 8 status hearing. (yxp, ) (Entered: 03/26/2025)
Order (June 30, 2025) (re nonparties contacting the court about protection of documents they produced in teh FTC investigation)
Note: fun to read
Stipulation and Joint Motion for Entry of an Order Regarding Expert Discovery (July 2, 2025) (so ordered July 2, 2025)
Memorandum Opinion and Order (July 7, 2025) (denying plaintiffs’ motions to compel Deere’s production of allegedly responsive database as nonproportionate and cumulative when Deere already had produced documents responsive to the production requests)
Injunctive relief
Criminal enforcement
American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U.S. 781 (1946)
Information, United States v. American Tobacco Co., Crim. No. 6670 (E.D. Ky filed July 24, 1940)
Agency reports and studies
± Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs Competition Committee, Refusals to Deal (DAF/COMP(2007)46, Sept. 3, 2009).
± United States, Roundtable on Refusals to Deal (OECD Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs Competition Committee, DAF/COMP/WD(2007)99, Aug. 19, 2008).
± Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, The Essential Facilities Concept (OCDE/GD(96)113, 1996)
Commentary
Howard A. Shelanski, Unilateral Refusals to Deal in Intellectual and Other Property, 76 Antitrust L.J. 369 (2009)
Case Studies
Steward/Blue Cross of Rhode Island
Google search bias (FTC 2013)
Adderall XR
FedEx/UPS
Brady/NFL
Novell/Microsoft
Steward/Blue Cross of Rhode Island
(private 2013)
DRI
Amended Complaint, Steward Health Care System LLC v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island, No. 13-405S (D.R.I. filed Aug. 26, 2015) (original complaint filed June 4, 2013)
Docket sheet (downloaded May 8, 2018)
Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island’s Answer to Amended Complaint (Sept. 18, 2015)
Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island’s Motion for Summary Judgment (July 14, 2017)
Opposition to Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island's Motion for Summary Judgment (aug. 11, 2017) (filed under seal)
Reply in Support of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Aug. 25, 2017)
Notice Regarding Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Nov. 29, 2017) (indicating tentative decision to grant BCBS' motion for summary judgment on all counts)
Opinion and Order (Apr. 23, 2018) (denying BCBS' motion for summary judgment)
Plaintiffs’ Pretrial Memorandum (Nov. 28, 2017)
Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island’s Pre-Trial Memorandum (Nov. 28, 2017)
Google_search_bias
(FTC 2013)
FTC
Bureau of Competition Staff Memorandum (Aug. 8, 2012)
Documents relating to the Google search investigation (from ± FTC web site)
Fed. Trade Comm'n, News Release, Google Agrees to Change Its Business Practices to Resolve FTC Competition Concerns In the Markets for Devices Like Smart Phones, Games and Tablets, and in Online Search (Jan. 3, 2013)
Statement of the Federal Trade Commission Regarding Google’s Search Practices In the Matter of Google Inc., FTC File Number 111-0163 (Jan. 3, 2013).
Google Press Conference Opening Remarks of Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz As Prepared for Delivery (Jan. 3, 2013)
Concurring and Dissenting Statement of Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch Regarding Google's Search Practices (Jan. 3, 2013)
Separate Statement of Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen
Statement of Chairwoman Edith Ramirez, and Commissioners Julie Brill and Maureen K. Ohlhausen regarding the Google Investigation (Mar. 25, 2016)
Commentary
± Brody Mullins, Rolfe Winkler & Brent Kendall, Inside the U.S. Antitrust Probe of Google, WSJ.com, Mar. 19, 2015
± Rolfe Winkler & Brody Mullins, How Google Skewed Search Results, WSJ.com, Mar. 19, 2015
Adderall XR
SDNY
Complaint, Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. v. Shire LLC, No. 1:12-cv-03711-VM (S.D.N.Y. filed May 9, 2012)
Docket sheet (downloaded Oct. 6, 2015)
Consent Order Consolidating Related Actions (Oct. 17, 2012)
Decision and Order (Mar. 6, 2013) (granting motion to dismiss) (reported at 929 F. Supp. 2d 256)
Judgment (Mar. 7, 2013)
Notice of Appeal (Apr. 2, 2013)
Second Circuit
In re Adderall XR Antitrust Litig., No. 13-1232 (2d Cir. docketed Apr. 3, 2013)
Docket sheet (downloaded Oct. 6, 2013)
Corrected Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants (Aug. 5, 2013)
Brief for Defendants-Appellees (Oct. 4, 2013)
Reply Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants (Oct. 18, 2013)
Opinion (June 9, 2014) (affirming grant of motion to dismiss)
Corrected Opinion (June 19, 2014) (reported at 754 F.3d 128)
Mandate (Aug. 18, 2014)
FedEx/UPS
First Amended Complaint, AFMS LLC v. United Parcel Service Co., No. 2:10-cv-05830-MMM -RC (C.D. Cal. filed Oct. 14, 2010)
Docket sheet (downloaded Jan. 8, 2011)
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of United Parcel Service Co.’s Motion to Dismiss [FRCP 12(b)(6)] (Nov. 12, 2010)
Reply Brief in Support of United Parcel Service Co.’s Motion to Dismiss [FRCP 12(b)(6)] (Dec. 20, 2010)
Defendant Fedex Corporation’s Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Dec. 20, 2010)
Brady/NFL
Complaint, Brady v. NFL, No. 0:11-cv-00639-PJS -JJG (D. Minn. filed Mar. 11, 2011)
Docket sheet (downloaded Mar. 12, 2011)
Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Mar. 11, 2011)
Memorandum of Law in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Mar. 11, 2011)
Memorandum of Law of the National Football League and Its Member Clubs In Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Mar. 21, 2011)
Novell/Microsoft
D. Utah
Complaint, Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:04-cv-01045-JFM (D. Utah filed Nov. 10, 2004)
Docket sheet (downloaded June 22, 2014)
Jury Instructions (Dec.. 19, 2011)
Court declares a mistrial for lack of a unanimous verdict (Dec. 16, 2011)
Microsoft’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Jan. 13, 2012)
Microsoft’s Memorandum in Support of its Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Feb. 3, 2012)
Novell’s Opposition to Plaintiff Microsoft’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Mar. 9, 2012)
Microsoft’s Reply Memorandum in Further Support of its Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (Mar. 30, 2012)
Opinion (July 16, 2012)
Order (July 12, 2012)
Judgment (July 12, 2012)
Notice of Appeal (Aug. 10, 2012)
Tenth Circuit
Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 12-4143 (10th Cir. Sept. 23, 2013)
Docket sheet (downloaded June 22, 2014)
Appellant’s Opening Brief (Nov. 21, 2012)
Brief of Defendant-Appellee Microsoft Corporation (Jan. 23, 2013)
Appellant’s Reply Brief (Feb. 22, 2013)
Judgment (Sept. 23, 2013)
Mandate (Nov. 12, 2013)
Other materials
Novell Corp., Press Release, Corel Acquires WordPerfect Software Products (Jan. 31, 1996)