On February 18, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal of a complaint filed by a ski rental store against the Deer Valley, Utah ski resort operator with its own ski rental operation alleging monopolization and attempted monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Christy Sports LLC v. Deer Valley Resort Co., Ltd., No. 07-4198 (10th Cir. Feb. 18, 2009) (Christy Sports v. Deer Valley Resort Decision). Plaintiff had sought to prevent enforcement of a restrictive covenant governing its use of property sold by the ski resort operator. When the ski resort operator sold the parcel of land on which the ski rental store operates, it imposed a restrictive covenant in the deed only permitting the operation of a ski rental business with its permission. For years, the ski resort operator permitted plaintiff to operate accepting a share of the profits in return. Preferring to capture that business in the future, the ski resort operator sought to enforce the restrictive covenant and put the ski rental store out of business. The Tenth Circuit rejected plaintiff’s claims under Section 2 of the Sherman Act for two independent reasons. First, the Court rejected plaintiff’s relevant product market definition of ski rental stores. Rather the Court held that the relevant market was the skiing experience. It reasoned that skiers do not come to the area to rent skis and that ski rentals are just one component of the skiing experience that they seek. It should be of no consequence that the ski resort operator charges more for ski rentals and as a consequence, less for e.g., lift tickets. Second, the Court held that there were no allegations of anticompetitive conduct. The antitrust laws do not forbid a business from imposing a restrictive covenant on a neighboring parcel of land to avoid competition and justify its investment in entry. Accordingly, nothing precludes the enforcement of an otherwise permissible restrictive covenant.
Feb
23
Posted by : | On : February 23, 2009
Mar
03
Posted by : | On : March 3, 2008
February 13, 2008. The FTC sued Cephalon for exclusionary conduct that is preventing generic competition with its branded drug Provigil. The FTC alleged that Cephalon settled with four different generic manufacturers. These generic manufacturers dropped their patent challenges to Provigil in exchange for cash payments. Under the vagaries of the Hatch-Waxman Act, generic entry is not possible until 180 days after one of these generic manufacturers enters the Provigil — which because their patent challenges have settled, will not be until after Provigil’s patent expires in 2012. The FTC adopted a new litigation strategy in this case. In the past, the FTC challenged these types of settlements in administrative proceedings and claimed that the basis for the “unfair method of competition” was a contract in restraint of trade — a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. However, in FTC v. Schering-Plough, 402 F.3d 1056 (11th Cir. 2005), the FTC’s administrative decision was reversed by the Eleventh Circuit on petition for review. The Eleventh Circuit held that a reverse patent settlement is not by itself a Section 1 violation.The FTC’s current litigation strategy avoids the implication of Schering-Plough in two respects. First, by avoiding administrative proceedings altogether and commencing the action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the FTC avoids review by the 11th Circuit. Second, the FTC is proceeding under a different theory of liability. The alleges that Cephalon willfully maintained its monopoly over Provigil through the patent settlements in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Accordingly, Schering-Plough — a Section 1 case — is inapposite. The FTC Press Release and Complaint are attached. FTC Press Release (Cephalon), FTC Complaint (Cephalon)
Feb
25
Posted by : | On : February 25, 2008
January 7, 2008. In Kentucky Speedway, LLC v. Nat’l Ass’n of Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., Civil Action No. 05-138 (WOB), 2008 WL 113987 (E.D.K.y. Jan. 7, 2008), the district court granted summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Section 1 and 2 claims. Kentucky Speedway sued because NASCAR refused to sponsor a NEXTEL race at its track. The Court considered it a “jilted distributor” case. It found that Kentucky Speedway failed to come forward with sufficient proof of relevant product market — an essential of element of both its Section 1 and 2 claims. It rejected the proposed relevant markets of a sanctioning market for the NEXTEL race and a hosting market for the same race. It granted NASCAR’s Daubert motion to exclude Kentucky Speedway’s expert because he did no study to determine the cross-elasticity of demand between NEXTEL races and other potential substitutes such as sporting events in general. Rather, Kentucky Speedway’s expert assumed only that a Bush NASCAR race event was a potential substitute.