Antitrust litigation demands lawyers who combine courtroom savvy with deep substantive knowledge of the antitrust laws and experience in their application.  The Ropes & Gray antitrust litigation team features lawyers with real-world experience representing major corporations and individuals in all aspects of antitrust litigation. Our attorneys try antitrust cases in state and federal court including before juries. They litigate antitrust issues in arbitrations, brief and argue antitrust appeals, and handle and coordinate multi-district and multi-jurisdictional litigation. When the goal is prompt termination of litigation, Ropes & Gray lawyers know how to facilitate creative resolutions that meet their client’s business objectives.

Our antitrust lawyers litigate matters not just for antitrust defendants, but also for antitrust plaintiffs, including in patent-antitrust cases. We believe that our experience in handling both types of matters combined with our deep substantive knowledge of antitrust law gives us a significant advantage.

Ropes & Gray lawyers handle all types of antitrust and related litigation:

Monopolization, Exclusive Dealing, and related Antitrust Litigation. The partners in Ropes & Gray’s antitrust practice have litigated important antitrust cases – including the most important exclusionary conduct case of the modern era – United States v. Microsoft Corp. – and handled numerous other allegations of anticompetitive conduct made by businesses against one another. We have litigated bundled discount, tying, exclusive dealing, market-share discount, sham litigation, refusal to deal, conspiracy-to-monopolize and Walker Process claims; we have defeated claims brought by rivals challenging mergers as unlawful; and we have handled claims challenging as unlawful director interlocks between corporations. 

Antitrust Class Actions and Conspiracy Cases. Our antitrust lawyers regularly handle antitrust class actions and other civil conspiracy claims. We defend treble damages class actions challenging international cartels and represent parties accused of conspiring with customers and competitors to exclusive rivals. We also represent parties accused of conspiring in standard-setting and other contexts. We have notable experience in handling issues involving the FTAIA and in successfully coordinating cases in multi-district litigation.

Government Antitrust Litigation. We litigate before state and federal antitrust agencies. We also represent parties in litigation and other proceedings before specialized administrative agencies – such as the FCC and DOT – where the outcomes often turn on the application of antitrust principles.

State Law and Unfair Competition Cases. Ropes & Gray lawyers litigate state antitrust and unfair competition cases, including claims brought under California’s Section 17200, Massachusetts’s Chapter 93A, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, New York’s Donnelly Act, the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, and many other statutes.

Representative Antitrust Litigation Matters:

• Fox v. Good Samaritan Hospital L.P. Successfully obtained summary judgment disposing of monopolization and related claims brought by physician challenging hospital’s privileges rules.
   
• In re Cathode Ray Tube Antitrust Litigation. Successfully secured dismissal of price fixing claims brought against our client Daewoo International Corporation in case alleging an international conspiracy to fix price charges for CRTs and CRT products.
   
• CtUnify, Inc. v. Nortel Networks, Inc. Successfully secured dismissal, affirmed on appeal, of allegations of unlawful tying and exclusive dealing brought by a competitor of our client Nortel Networks.
   
• In re Optical Disk Drive Products Antitrust Litigation. Representation of a major manufacturer of optical disk drive products in defending against direct and indirect purchaser price fixing claims.
   
• Marchese v. Cablevision Systems Corp. Representation of Cablevision in defending class action alleging unlawful tying involving set-top boxes.
   
• In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation. Representation of an air cargo carrier accused by a class action of unlawfully conspiring with its rivals.
   
• Verizon v. Cablevision Systems Corp. Representation of Cablevision before FCC in defending against Program Access Complaints brought by rivals seeking access to HD regional sports programming.
   
• Universal Delaware, Inc. v. Ceridian Corp. Representation of TravelCenters of America, LLC in defending antitrust conspiracy claims brought in a class action by independent truck stops.
   
• Lincoln Adventures, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London. Representation of Lloyd’s of London in various antitrust class actions alleging that contingent commission arrangements among insurers and brokers unlawfully allocated customers.
   
• In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation. Representation of TravelCenters of America and Petro Stopping Centers in an action alleging that the practice of selling motor fuel without certain adjustments violates the consumer protection and unfair trade practice statutes in two dozen states.
   
• Doe v. Arizona Hospital and HealthCare Association. Representation of a large for profit hospital in a class action alleging anticompetitive practices in connection with a trade association.
   
• Klein v. Bain Capital Partners, LLC. Representation of an investment firm in defending an antitrust class action alleging unlawful conspiracy among private equity firms in bidding for targets.

---

©1996-2012 Ropes & Gray LLP. All rights reserved.