Insights

Washington – December 22, 2022: Global Competition Review recognized Crowell & Moring’s Antitrust & Competition Group in its “GCR 100 2023” – the leading ranking of the world’s competition policy law and economics practices. This year marks the 23rd edition of the awards and the 16th consecutive year that the Antitrust & Competition Group has been recognized.

Los Angeles – September 12, 2022: The Recorder named Crowell & Moring partner Jordan Ludwig to its 2022 list of Lawyers on the Fast Track (Under 40). This award recognizes lawyers for their outstanding career accomplishments who are seen as the next generation of legal leaders in California.

Washington – December 15, 2021: Global Competition Review once again recognized Crowell & Moring’s Antitrust & Competition Group in its annual “GCR 100” – the leading ranking of the world’s competition policy law and economics practices. This year marks the 22nd edition of the awards and the 15th consecutive year that the Antitrust & Competition Group has been recognized.

In an early test of antitrust claims based on alleged algorithmic price fixing, a federal judge dismissed a class-action complaint alleging that hotel operators conspired to unlawfully fix the prices of hotel rooms on the Las Vegas Strip using pricing software. Last week, a judge in the District of Nevada dismissed allegations that Las Vegas Strip hotel operators colluded to use pricing software to fix room rates, finding that Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that there was an agreement among the hotels to use the same pricing algorithm or even the same software product; which hotel operators were involved in the purported agreement; or that there was any confidential information exchanged via the software to support a “hub-and-spoke” conspiracy. The court did, however, grant Plaintiffs leave to submit an amended complaint. Thus, the case (Gibson v. MGM Resorts) provides initial guideposts for how companies using pricing software might reduce potential antitrust risks.

In a closely watched "reverse payment patent settlements" case, In re: Loestrin 24 Fe Antitrust Litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has joined the Third Circuit and several district courts in holding that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in FTC v. Actavis, 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013) applies to non-monetary settlements. The First Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal and held that Actavis applies to non-cash payments as well as cash payments.

Today a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in the closely watched Motorola v. Microsoft case. The panel affirmed the Washington federal district court decision setting a reasonable and nondiscriminatory (RAND) royalty rate for Motorola's standard-essential patents (SEPs) for WiFi and video-coding technology. As explained in our prior alert on the April oral argument, the case raises important issues for all parties involved in SEP license negotiations. The Court held:

The right to repair is at the center of a key policy debate with the Biden Administration voicing support for competition and consumer choice in repair markets. Over the summer, the FTC announced three proposed settlements alleging violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the FTC Act. Additionally, the right to repair movement is gaining momentum as the pace of private litigation in this area has increased.

Can current antitrust enforcement tools address the increasing prominence of digital markets? How might proposed antitrust policy reforms affect digital markets and the enforcement agencies?