61 Cited authorities

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 215,883 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
475 U.S. 574 (1986) Cited 112,902 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that, on summary judgment, antitrust plaintiffs "must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed" them
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc.
504 U.S. 451 (1992) Cited 2,285 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that "it is clearly reasonable to infer that [the defendant] has market power to raise prices and drive out competition in the aftermarkets" for service and parts despite an undisputed lack of market power in the initial product
Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.
508 U.S. 49 (1993) Cited 1,130 times 42 Legal Analyses
Holding litigants immune from an antitrust claim under Noerr-Pennington immunity
Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.
429 U.S. 477 (1977) Cited 2,063 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that mere economic loss does not amount to an antitrust injury under the antitrust laws
Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.
572 U.S. 663 (2014) Cited 498 times 65 Legal Analyses
Holding that laches is not a defense to damages for copyright infringement
United States v. Grinnell Corp.
384 U.S. 563 (1966) Cited 2,642 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding a series of three acquisitions "eliminated any possibility of an outbreak of competition" and thereby "perfected the monopoly power to exclude competitors and fix prices."
California Transport v. Trucking Unlimited
404 U.S. 508 (1972) Cited 1,577 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding "the right to petition extends to all departments of the Government," including the courts
Verizon Comm. v. Law Offices of Trinko
540 U.S. 398 (2004) Cited 506 times 54 Legal Analyses
Holding even a monopolist has no duty to cooperate with rivals
White v. Lee
227 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2000) Cited 2,060 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that, because it “is based on and implements the First Amendment right to petition,” the Noerr–Pennington doctrine “applies equally in all contexts”
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 327,983 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 2 - Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty
15 U.S.C. § 2 Cited 4,379 times 30 Legal Analyses
In § 2 cases under the Sherman Act, as in § 7 cases under the Clayton Act (Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 325) there may be submarkets that are separate economic entities.

Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc.

61 Cited authorities

Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

Holding that, on summary judgment, antitrust plaintiffs "must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed" them

Holding that "it is clearly reasonable to infer that [the defendant] has market power to raise prices and drive out competition in the aftermarkets" for service and parts despite an undisputed lack of market power in the initial product

Holding litigants immune from an antitrust claim under Noerr-Pennington immunity

Holding that mere economic loss does not amount to an antitrust injury under the antitrust laws

Holding that laches is not a defense to damages for copyright infringement

Holding a series of three acquisitions "eliminated any possibility of an outbreak of competition" and thereby "perfected the monopoly power to exclude competitors and fix prices."

Holding "the right to petition extends to all departments of the Government," including the courts

Holding even a monopolist has no duty to cooperate with rivals

Holding that, because it “is based on and implements the First Amendment right to petition,” the Noerr–Pennington doctrine “applies equally in all contexts”

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

In § 2 cases under the Sherman Act, as in § 7 cases under the Clayton Act (Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 325) there may be submarkets that are separate economic entities.