An appeals court in Chicago announced Tuesday that it has decided to vacate its earlier decision to uphold the dismissal of Motorola Mobility’s lawsuit claiming it was a victim of the LCD panel price-fixing collusion, according to reports.
The court’s decision revives Motorola’s case against various LCD makers including Samsung Electrics and Sharp. The case will now be heard again.
The court did not offer a reason for its change of heart.
Mobile phone manufacturer Motorola, owned by Google, is suing companies that were found to have manipulated LCD screen prices. The case has earned significant attention by antitrust experts because Motorola is fighting the actions of LCD makers’ overseas affiliates.
The appeals court found last March that those overseas companies were beyond the reach of US antitrust law, and therefore dismissed the case.
The court is headed by US Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner.
”If the remedies are inadequate, or if the countries don’t have or don’t enforce antitrust laws, these were the risks that the subsidiaries (and hence Motorola) assumed by deciding to do business in those countries,” Posner wrote in the March decision.
That ruling aligned with last January’s ruling by US District Judge Joan B. Gottschall, who found similar reasoning for dismissing the case.
But Motorola was backed by the American Antitrust Institute and the Federal Trade Commission in its pursuit to have its case heard. Experts warned that dismissing the case on these grounds has wide, negative implications for the effectiveness and strength of federal antitrust law.
Full content: Bloomberg
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
Supreme Court Rejects Uber and Lyft’s Appeal in California Gig Worker Suits
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Supreme Court Sidesteps 5-Hour Energy Pricing Case, Allowing Antitrust Claims to Proceed
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Tempur Sealy and Mattress Firm Argue FTC Proceedings Are Unconstitutional in New Suit
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Korean Telecom Giants Face Potential $4.1 Billion Fine Over Price-Fixing Allegations
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Mexico’s Antitrust Authority Targets Gruma for Market Control
Oct 7, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh