US Supreme Court rules that the NFL is not a single entity for purposes of licensing intellectual property | Practical Law

US Supreme Court rules that the NFL is not a single entity for purposes of licensing intellectual property | Practical Law

On 24 May 2010, the US Supreme Court, in a unanimous 9-0 decision, denied the National Football League (NFL) broad protection from liability arising from intellectual property licensing which may violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The NFL has long sought immunity from Section 1 of the Sherman Act liability by claiming that it and its 32 teams are a "single entity" incapable of conspiring. The Supreme Court held that the NFL is not a single entity but rather 32 separate team businesses for purposes of licensing intellectual property, and, therefore, its licensing activities constitute concerted action that is not categorically beyond the coverage of Section 1. The case was remanded for further examination of the allegations made by the plaintiff ,American Needle, Inc., to determine if the restraint of trade is unreasonable and therefore illegal.

US Supreme Court rules that the NFL is not a single entity for purposes of licensing intellectual property

by Practical Law
Law stated as at 24 May 2010USA (National/Federal)
On 24 May 2010, the US Supreme Court, in a unanimous 9-0 decision, denied the National Football League (NFL) broad protection from liability arising from intellectual property licensing which may violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The NFL has long sought immunity from Section 1 of the Sherman Act liability by claiming that it and its 32 teams are a "single entity" incapable of conspiring. The Supreme Court held that the NFL is not a single entity but rather 32 separate team businesses for purposes of licensing intellectual property, and, therefore, its licensing activities constitute concerted action that is not categorically beyond the coverage of Section 1. The case was remanded for further examination of the allegations made by the plaintiff ,American Needle, Inc., to determine if the restraint of trade is unreasonable and therefore illegal.