Publisher's Synopsis
Recently cited by the Tenth Circuit in Kay Electric Cooperative vs. City of Newkirk: “with its usual care Professor Areeda and Hovenkamp’s treatise traces all these warps and wefts” in analyzing a municipality’s antitrust immunity in light of state authorizing legislation.
The authority of Areeda and Hovenkamp's Antitrust Law is second to none. It has been cited more than 50 times by the Supreme Court, more than 50 times by the FTC, and more than 1,050 times by the federal courts. Most recently it was cited by the Supreme Court in American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League. No other source gives you all the law to avoid antitrust liability as you:
- Plan marketing strategies and develop pricing policies
- Structure mergers and acquisitions with attention to potential antitrust consequences
- Prove - or defend against - antitrust injury, monopolization, conspiracy, tying, and other allegation
Among the real-world examples and proven strategies you can apply directly to your own cases, you'll find clear discussions of
- Intellectual property and antitrust
- Predatory pricing
- Antitrust issues in healthcare, media, and other areas
- Monopolizing conduct
- "Substantial" market power
- Market share and buyer concentration
- Interlocking directors
- Refusals to deal
- Territorial customer limitation
- Product tying
- Contractual arbitration provisions
- Plus in-depth examination of thousands of cases
Antitrust Law is updated twice per year. A Cumulative Supplement is issued in April, and new volumes (4th Edition volumes starting in 2013) are issued in September. Highlights for the 2013 Supplement include:
- Full coverage of important decisions considering whether the owner of standards-essential patents that have been made subject to FRAND agreements may obtain an injunction against infringers. See Chapter 7, ¶709
- Full coverage of the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Phoebe-Putney Sys., reversing the Eleventh Circuit and holding that the antitrust “state action” doctrine did not immunize an anticompetitive merger between two hospitals. See ¶225b4.
- Coverage of ZF Meritor decision in the Third Circuit condemning above-cost discounting practices. See Chapter 18, ¶1807b2
- Coverage of the Seventh Circuit’s Agnew v. NCAA decision approving NCAA college agreements limiting the availability of financial aid to student athletes. See Chapter 15, ¶1508
- Coverage of the Sixth Circuit’s Erie County decision refusing to find an unlawful agreement in suspicious parallel practices in the Ohio rock salt market. See Chapter 3, ¶307d1
- Treatment of the Federal Circuit’s Ritz Camera decision holding that consumers had standing to bring a Walker Process–style patent exclusion claim. See Chapter 7, ¶706e2
- On the indirect purchaser rule, consideration of the Ninth Circuit’s ATM Fee decision that consumer users ofATMs whose operators were accused of fixing fees were indirect purchasers, with the banks being the direct purchasers. See Chapter 3, ¶346j
- Coverage of the Second Circuit’s Eatoni decision concluding that Research-in-Motion’s BlackBerry communications device was not an essential facility and was thus not required to accommodate the plaintiff’s patented keyboard application. See Chapter 7, ¶772
- Treatment of the Ninth Circuit’s Brantley v. NBC decision on rehearing, holding that a tying action cannot be maintained under the rule of reason in the absence of foreclosure of tied market rivals. See Chapter 17, ¶1704
- Coverage of recent decisions splitting on the legality of reverse payment patent settlements in the pharmaceutical industry; Supreme Court to decide this issue. See Chapter 20, ¶2046c
- Treatment of the Seventh Circuit’s Sulfuric Acid decision, holding that joint venture market division and shut-down agreements must be analyzed under the rule of reason. See Chapter 21, ¶213 ;
