Antitrust

Munger, Tolles & Olson has been counsel to the nation’s leading corporations in their most sensitive antitrust matters, as well as smaller entities that need guidance in structuring their activities to minimize risk under federal and state competition laws. Our clients in antitrust matters operate in a range of industries including technology, media and entertainment, oil, pharmaceutical and retail. Our lawyers represent clients in class actions, business-to-business disputes, multi-jurisdictional proceedings, government investigations and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proceedings. We also frequently advise on complex matters at the intersection of antitrust and intellectual property laws.

We have represented businesses in cases alleging price-fixing, monopolization in standard-setting and other contexts, Robinson-Patman violations, resale price maintenance, bundled discounting, tying, refusals to deal and other forms of alleged antitrust violations. Many of these cases resulted in our clients receiving favorable summary judgments, jury verdicts and appellate court opinions establishing important principles of antitrust law.

We are proud to count among our antitrust lawyers Glenn D. Pomerantz, who was tapped in 2011 by the U.S. Department of Justice to serve as co-lead trial counsel in its antitrust case challenging the proposed AT&T Inc./T-Mobile USA Inc. merger. The merger was abandoned shortly thereafter.

Examples of the firm’s antitrust representations include:

  • 1-800 Contacts in obtaining dismissal of a lawsuit for alleged sham litigation and attempted monopolization of the contact lens market claims by a rival contact lens seller.
  • AbbVie, formerly Abbott Laboratories, in a U.S. Supreme Court case addressing a split in the circuits  regarding whether so-called “reverse payment” patent settlements between brand-name pharmaceutical companies and generic drug manufacturers violate antitrust laws. The court applied a rule of reason framework for the settlements, rejecting the FTC’s long-held position that reverse payments should be presumptively unlawful. We subsequently obtained a dismissal of the first reverse payment claim brought by the FTC since the Supreme Court’s decision.
  • BNSF Railway, a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, in defending a price-fixing and monopolization case brought by Oxbow Carbon & Minerals against BNSF and Union Pacific Railroad Co.
  • Fox Entertainment Group in obtaining a dismissal of a class action with other cable programmers and distributors challenging the “tiering” or bundling of channels in purported violation of the Sherman Act. We also obtained affirmance of the dismissal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
  • Intel Corporation in defending, preparing for trial, and ultimately obtaining a settlement in an antitrust case brought by a class of current and former employees of various technology companies alleging that the defendants conspired to abstain from cold-calling each other’s employees.
  • LG Display in class and individual actions brought by business and retail customers stemming from allegations of price-fixing among manufacturers of liquid crystal display panels.
  • Takeda Pharmaceuticals and its former subsidiary Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. in obtaining one of the first denials of certification of a large proposed class of indirect purchasers in pharmaceutical antitrust litigation alleging the companies’ conduct in licensing and enforcing patents delayed market entry of generic drugs.
  • Universal Music Group (UMG) as lead counsel in the FTC’s antitrust review of several major transactions, including UMG’s acquisitions of BMG Music Publishing, the Latin music labels of Univision and the recorded-music business of EMI.

Contact:
Bradley S. Phillips (213) 683-9262
Glenn D. Pomerantz (213) 683-9132
Stuart N. Senator (213) 683-9528
Gregory P. Stone (213) 683-9255
Jeffrey I. Weinberger (213) 683-9127