Unilateral Conduct

This Practice Note covers exclusive dealing arrangements between manufacturers or suppliers and distributors, retailers and end users. It discusses the applicability of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, Section 3 of the Clayton Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act to exclusive dealing.  This Note also discusses partial exclusive dealing arrangements and offers counseling tips on exclusive dealing.

This Practice Note provides a brief overview of the US antitrust law relating to tying practices, with a particular emphasis on patent and technological tying arrangements and recent developments in these areas.

A flowchart to aid counsel in identifying the shifting burdens of proof in a monopolization claim brought under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Austria. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. For a full list of recommended competition law firms and lawyers in Austria, please visit PLC Which lawyer? To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of Competition jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in China. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in France. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Greece. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Israel. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Norway. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in South Korea. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Switzerland. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in the UK (England and Wales). The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Indonesia. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Brazil. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims; exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in the Czech Republic. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Finland. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.  

A Q&A guide to competition law in Italy. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Portugal. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in South Africa. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in the United States. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Belgium. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. It covers relevant triggering events and thresholds; notification requirements, procedures and timetables; third party claims; exclusions and exemptions; penalties for breach; and proposals for reform. For a full list of recommended competition law firms and lawyers in Belgium, please visit PLC Which lawyer? This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competitionhandbook.

In a five to four decision, the US Supreme Court recently reversed the Third Circuit in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, holding that the plaintiff class was improperly certified under Rule 23(b)(3).

On 25 February 2011, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it had reached a settlement with United Regional Health Care System (United Regional) of Wichita Falls, Texas. If approved by the court, the settlement will resolve a civil antitrust lawsuit alleging a violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act brought by the DOJ Antitrust Division and the State of Texas. The lawsuit alleged that the hospital used its monopoly power to inhibit commercial health insurers from contracting with competing health-care providers.

On 8 March 2010, Chief Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell announced that Polypore International Inc. (Polypore) violated US federal antitrust laws when it consummated its acquisition of rival battery separator manufacturer Microporous L.P. (Microporous) in February 2008.  Polypore must divest Microporous to a buyer approved by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) within six months after the divestiture provisions of Judge Chappell's Order become final.  Polypore was also found to have illegally divided up the markets for specific types of battery separators in North America through a 2001 joint marketing agreement with potential rival Hollingsworth & Vose (H&V).

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has dismissed claims that Abbott Laboratories violated section 2 of the Sherman Act by leveraging a monopoly for one pharmaceutical product to attempt to monopolise the market for a second pharmaceutical product. The Court held that the plaintiffs' allegations did not state a claim under section 2 the Sherman Act because the plaintiffs did not allege either any exclusionary practices in the primary market in which Abbott purportedly held a monopoly or below-cost pricing in the secondary market.

On 25 February 2009, the US Supreme Court held that a "price-squeeze" claim cannot be brought under section 2 of the Sherman Act where a vertically integrated firm with an alleged monopoly at the wholesale level has no antitrust duty to deal with its downstream retail competitors. The Court's ruling in Pacific Bell Telephone Co., D/B/A AT&T California v. linkLine Communications, Inc. reversed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.