Zenith Corp. v. Hazeltine

71 Citing briefs

  1. In Re Namenda Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 445 MOTION to Exclude Opinions and Proposed Testimony of Dr. Russell Lamb . PUBLIC VERSION. Document

    Filed January 18, 2018

    (“[D]amages issues in [antitrust] cases are rarely susceptible of the kind of concrete, detailed proof of injury which is available in other contexts.”) (quoting Zenith, 395 U.S. at 123). Accordingly, while a class damages model should “‘measure only those damages attributable to [plaintiffs’] theory,’” the “fundamental principle of antitrust law” remains and there is no requirement that “an expert’s model precisely tailor, in a fool-proof way, the connection between the damages claimed and the anticompetitive conduct alleged in order to be admissible under Daubert.”

  2. Fischell et al v. Cordis Corporation

    BRIEF in Opposition

    Filed February 28, 2017

    Parties may—and often do—contractually agree that royalties are due regardless of whether the product is infringing, and courts will enforce such agreements as written. See, e.g., Zenith Radio, 395 U.S. at 138; Engel Indus., 96 F.3d at 1408 (“We agree with the magistrate judge’s statement that royalties may be based on unpatented components if that provides a convenient means for measuring the value of the license.”); see also Cellport, 762 F.3d at 1022-23 (holding “irrelevant” evidence that the products did not infringe where license agreement acknowledged that certain products were royalty bearing for the “convenience of the parties”).

  3. Realnetworks, Inc. et al v. DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. et al

    Reply Memorandum re MOTION to Dismiss NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DVD COPY CONTROL ASSOCIATION, INC. TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS

    Filed September 4, 2009

    Furthermore, SCTLA predated Dagher, and did not consider the “core activity” issue at all; it consequently has no bearing here. Equally inapposite are Zenith Radio and Princo, two cases that RealNetworks cites elsewhere in its opposition memorandum in favor of per se liability; the former case never even discussed whether per se liability should have been imposed, see generally 395 U.S. 100, and the latter explicitly disavowed any determination as to whether per se liability was appropriate, see 563 F.3d at 1314 n.11. Case3:08-cv-04548-MHP Document453 Filed09/04/09 Page16 of 17 12 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF DVD CCA TO DISMISS CASE NO.

  4. HASSELL v. BIRD

    Respondents’ Response to Amicus Curiae Brief

    Filed July 19, 2017

    Not only is a discussion of due process wholly absent in Zenith, but that court recognized that there were indeed occasions when the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow injunctions to run against nonparties. (Zenith, 395 U.S. at 112,citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(d).) Furtherillustrating the ACLU’s overreachis that Omni never even mentioned injunctions.

  5. DNAML Pty, Limited v. Apple, Inc. et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 144 MOTION for Summary Judgment . . Document

    Filed October 8, 2015

    To prove causation, a plaintiff need not “exhaust all possible alternative sources of injury,” but it must show that the alleged conspiracy is “a material cause of the injury.” Zenith Radio Corp., 395 U.S. at 114 n. 9. “[A] plaintiff must make some showing of ‘actual injury attributable to something the antitrust laws were designed to prevent.

  6. Teamsters Local 404 Health Services & Insurance Plan v. King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 12 FIRST MOTION to Remand . / Respondents' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Petitioner Teamsters Local 404 Health Services & Insurance Plan's Motion to Remand. Document

    Filed August 3, 2015

    (citing Continental Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., 370 U.S. 690, 702, 82 S. Ct. 1404 (1962)); Doron Precision Sys., Inc., v. Case 1:15-cv-04666-LAK Document 18 Filed 08/03/15 Page 28 of 41 21 FAAC, Inc., 423 F. Supp. 2d 173, 180-181 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (dismissing Section 1 and 2 claims because alleged conduct did not cause alleged antitrust injury); see also Zenith Radio Corp. v . Hazeltime Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 114 n.9, 89 S. Ct. 1562, 1571 n.9 (1969) (antitrust plaintiff must prove “the fact of damage . . . flowing from the unlawful conspiracy”); Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co., 282 U.S. 555, 562, 51 S. Ct. 248, 250 (1931) (antitrust plaintiff must prove both “the fact” and “the extent” of damage). This is a necessary element of a private plaintiff’s cause of action – without this showing, a private plaintiff cannot recover damages.

  7. Adel Tawfilis v. Allergan, Inc.

    OPPOSITION to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rules 12

    Filed July 28, 2015

    It suffices if the defendant’s action was a material cause of the harm, even if there were other causes that caused the same injury. Zenith, 395 U.S. at 114, n.9. This is so -17- Case 8:15-cv-00307-JLS-JCG Document 39 Filed 07/28/15 Page 24 of 39 Page ID #:485 Case No.

  8. Keller v. Electronic Arts Inc. et al

    REPLY

    Filed April 25, 2013

    This is consistent with the injunctive provisions of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 26), which have been read by the United States Supreme Court to encompass not just injunctions against the specific unlawful conduct at issue, but also injunctions against all related unlawful acts. Zenith, 395 U.S. at 133. III. SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO EA’S AND CLC’S OPPOSITION EA and CLC additionally contend that they were just following the NCAA’s rules, that there has been no showing by classwide proof that they participated in any “broadcast conspiracy” involving the NCAA or its members, and that misconduct with regard to the videogames can be shown with common proof.

  9. In Re: TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation

    RESPONSE

    Filed September 6, 2012

    Dr. Marx testified that this fact further confirmed that the use of market share data to analyze the volume of Plaintiffs’ purchases that contained Defendant panels is reasonable and reliable.60 This evidence is more than enough to demonstrate the fact of damage, i.e., “some damage flowing from the unlawful conspiracy.” Zenith, 395 U.S. at 114 n.9 (emphasis added).61 C. Comprehensive Discovery Has Established That Defendants Chose Not To Keep Records That Would Allow Plaintiffs To Prove Damage on a Product-By-Product or Purchase-By-Purchase Basis. In this context, it is truly incredible that Defendants attempt to malign Dr. Marx’s analysis based on the fact that Defendants maintained incomplete data identifying the particular panels used in each of the millions of finished products purchased by Plaintiffs.

  10. One or more Plaintiffs in 06-cv-05561, Diana Kitch v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co et al

    MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 63 Motion to Dismiss; granting 242 Motion to Certify Class; granting 247 Motion to Certify Class. Ordered

    Filed January 26, 2012

    This finding is consistent with the purpose of section 16 of the Clayton Act, which is to provide courts a "flexible" mechanism with which to serve "the high purpose of enforcing the antitrust laws." Zenith, 395 U.S. at 131. Since courts need not precisely calculate the economic injury inflicted by an artificial price when granting injunctive relief, there is certainly no reason to do so at the class certification stage.