Stefan M. Meisner
Overview
Over the past two decades, when companies have faced difficult global cartel investigations, United States Department of Justice antitrust investigations, antitrust class actions, and complex antitrust cases at the intersection of antitrust and patent law, Stefan M. Meisner has guided clients through their most challenging legal issues. In all these situations, Stefan has assisted clients in developing clear strategies with practical steps to ensure clients achieve results consistent with their priorities.
Career & Education
- University of Massachusetts Amherst, B.A., 1991
- American University Washington College of Law, J.D., cum laude, 1999
- District of Columbia
- Maryland
Professional Activities and Memberships
- Member, The Sedona Conference®, Working Group on Electronic Document Retention and Production
Stefan's Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 02.24.26
DOJ v. OhioHealth Confirms Antitrust Enforcers’ Continued Focus on Health Care Markets
On February 20, 2026, the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division (DOJ) and Ohio Attorney General (Ohio AG) sued OhioHealth Corporation (OhioHealth), alleging that OhioHealth had unlawfully restrained trade in the market for general acute care inpatient hospital services in the Columbus metropolitan statistical area and the narrower Central Columbus area, respectively. The DOJ and Ohio AG allege violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, as well as the Valentine Act (Ohio’s antitrust statute), claiming that OhioHealth leveraged its market power to impose contractual restrictions that blocked payors from working with competing health systems to design “budget-conscious” lower-cost health plans.
Publication | 09.03.25
Webinar | 07.30.25
Speaking Engagement | 07.30.25
"H2 2025: What Retailers/E-Commerce Need to Know," Crowell & Moring Webinar
Representative Matters
- Representing a Japanese automotive parts manufacturer in the antitrust multi-district litigation relating to automotive parts following DOJ investigation and resolution.
- Defended a chocolate confectionery company in a class action price fixing litigation, winning summary judgment.
- Defended Static Control Components, Inc. in a copyright, Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and patent infringement action, including assertion of patent misuse defense, obtaining favorable jury verdict after five-week trial, successful Sixth Circuit appeal, and favorable decision from U.S. Supreme Court.
- Defended a power tools manufacturer, achieving a motion to dismiss with prejudice related to charges of conspiring with other suppliers not to license the plaintiff’s technology and to manipulate certain safety standards.
- Obtained merger clearance in multiple jurisdictions for defense contractor’s acquisition.
- Defended a medical device manufacturer in antitrust counterclaim raised in a patent infringement case, winning summary judgment against allegations of “technological tying” of insulin pumps and related disposable infusion “sets.”
- Defended a semiconductor company in antitrust counterclaim raised in a patent infringement case, winning motion to dismiss against allegations that the patent holder knew its patents were invalid at the time the plaintiff filed its infringement suit.
- Obtained regulatory clearance in multiple complex acquisitions, often involving Second Requests, for numerous clients.
Stefan's Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 02.24.26
DOJ v. OhioHealth Confirms Antitrust Enforcers’ Continued Focus on Health Care Markets
On February 20, 2026, the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division (DOJ) and Ohio Attorney General (Ohio AG) sued OhioHealth Corporation (OhioHealth), alleging that OhioHealth had unlawfully restrained trade in the market for general acute care inpatient hospital services in the Columbus metropolitan statistical area and the narrower Central Columbus area, respectively. The DOJ and Ohio AG allege violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, as well as the Valentine Act (Ohio’s antitrust statute), claiming that OhioHealth leveraged its market power to impose contractual restrictions that blocked payors from working with competing health systems to design “budget-conscious” lower-cost health plans.
Publication | 09.03.25
Webinar | 07.30.25
Speaking Engagement | 07.30.25
"H2 2025: What Retailers/E-Commerce Need to Know," Crowell & Moring Webinar
Recognition
- Global Competition Review
- The Legal 500, 2019
- Washington Super Lawyers, 2012 – Present
Stefan's Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 02.24.26
DOJ v. OhioHealth Confirms Antitrust Enforcers’ Continued Focus on Health Care Markets
On February 20, 2026, the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division (DOJ) and Ohio Attorney General (Ohio AG) sued OhioHealth Corporation (OhioHealth), alleging that OhioHealth had unlawfully restrained trade in the market for general acute care inpatient hospital services in the Columbus metropolitan statistical area and the narrower Central Columbus area, respectively. The DOJ and Ohio AG allege violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, as well as the Valentine Act (Ohio’s antitrust statute), claiming that OhioHealth leveraged its market power to impose contractual restrictions that blocked payors from working with competing health systems to design “budget-conscious” lower-cost health plans.
Publication | 09.03.25
Webinar | 07.30.25
Speaking Engagement | 07.30.25
"H2 2025: What Retailers/E-Commerce Need to Know," Crowell & Moring Webinar
Insights
Cases and Precedents: Cartels: USA 2025
|11.01.24
Global Competition Review
Authored in 2023, 2024, 2025
Talking Supply Chain: Understanding The FTC’s Ban On Noncompetes
|04.25.24
Supply Chain Management Review
Register Now! H2 2025: What Retailers/E-Commerce Need to Know Webinar
|07.23.25
Crowell & Moring’s Retail & Consumer Products Law Observer
Practices
Stefan's Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 02.24.26
DOJ v. OhioHealth Confirms Antitrust Enforcers’ Continued Focus on Health Care Markets
On February 20, 2026, the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division (DOJ) and Ohio Attorney General (Ohio AG) sued OhioHealth Corporation (OhioHealth), alleging that OhioHealth had unlawfully restrained trade in the market for general acute care inpatient hospital services in the Columbus metropolitan statistical area and the narrower Central Columbus area, respectively. The DOJ and Ohio AG allege violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, as well as the Valentine Act (Ohio’s antitrust statute), claiming that OhioHealth leveraged its market power to impose contractual restrictions that blocked payors from working with competing health systems to design “budget-conscious” lower-cost health plans.
Publication | 09.03.25
Webinar | 07.30.25
Speaking Engagement | 07.30.25
"H2 2025: What Retailers/E-Commerce Need to Know," Crowell & Moring Webinar




