Newsroom
Crowell Wins Dismissal of DuPont Monopolization Lawsuit
April 9, 2012 — Global Competition Review
The U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia found that Kolon Industries failed to prove that Crowell & Moring client DuPont monopolized the market for the material, or used its contracts with customers to shut out rivals. Crowell & Moring chairman and Antitrust Group partner Kent A. Gardiner told
Global Competition Review, "Discovery proved that not a single customer complained about DuPont's business practices, or sided with Kolon in support of its claims. The court rightly found that DuPont neither was a monopolist in the market nor engaged in any anti-competitive conduct."
DuPont Escapes Kolon's Body Armor Antitrust Case
April 6, 2012 — Competition Law360
A Virginia federal judge dismissed an antitrust suit brought by Kolon Industries Inc. against Crowell & Moring client DuPont over a synthetic fiber used in body armor, finding there was no evidence of a monopoly by DuPont. U.S. District Judge Robert E. Payne granted DuPont's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the DuPont did not monopolize or attempt to monopolize the para-aramid fiber market and held that competition in the industry is thriving. Speaking to
Competition Law360, Kent A. Gardiner, Crowell & Moring chairman and Antitrust Group partner, said, "The ruling fully vindicates DuPont’s business practices in this critical sector of the economy. The court rightly found that DuPont neither was a monopolist in the market nor engaged in any anti-competitive conduct."
Staying On Top Of Electronic Data In IP Cases
June 23, 2009 — IP Law360, Technology Law360
Crowell & Moring LLP E-Discovery and Information Management Group counsel David D. Cross is featured for his comments on the importance of electronic data in intellectual property cases.
Qualcomm Points to New E-Discovery Approach
October 2, 2008 — Law360
Crowell & Moring E-Discovery Group counsel David D. Cross is featured in
Law360 after moderating the American Bar Association teleconference on the
Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp. decision.