U.S. cases: “product redesign” as anti-competitive strategy

************

This post is from our series dedicated to statistical analyses of antitrust law.
We called it: « Let’s Stat ».

Methodology:

We entered the keyword “product redesign” AND “antitrust” AND “section 2” AND “Sherman Act” on WestLawNext search engine.

Comments:

• Product redesign can be anti-competitive. Courts have long used the notion of “tying” to address it, but the trend is changing (although we can legitimately think that many more cases are concerned with this issue than those using these specific terms). High-tech markets are especially concerned by this kind of practices, the reason why judges are now considering it under its own legal regime. Work is now to be done on its judicial contours.

• Here is the list of the cases for 2015:

– Vesta Corp. v. Amdocs Management Ltd.United States District Court, D. Oregon. September 03, 2015 — F.Supp.3d —-

– Duty Free Americas, Inc. v. Estee Lauder Companies, Inc.United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. August 07, 2015 797 F.3d 1248 2015

– New York ex rel. Schneiderman v. Actavis PLCUnited States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. May 22, 2015 787 F.3d 638 2015

– Collegenet, Inc. v. Common Application, Inc.United States District Court, D. Oregon. May 15, 2015 104 F.Supp.3d 1137 2015

– Superior Production Partnership v. Gordon Auto Body Parts Co., Ltd.United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. April 22, 2015 784 F.3d 311 2015Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd. Co.United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. April 16, 2015 Slip Copy 2015

– Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd. Co.United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. April 16, 2015 Slip Copy 2015

by Thibault Schrepel