This is a rundown of last week\u2019s news updates on Antitrust:<\/p>\n
Chemical company BASF Corp has succeeded in their claims against rival chemical company Ingevity Corp for antitrust claims of tying a license to a patent to an obligation to buy the consequent product. The jury in this case had reached an award of $28 million, however, based on a provision of US federal antitrust law, the award is to be tripled to nearly $85 million. The issue arose out of Ingevity suing for patent infringement of their \u201choneycomb scrubbers\u201d for reducing auto emissions, which led to BASF countersuing for patent invalidity.<\/p>\n
The Competition Commission of India (CCI), the country\u2019s antitrust regulator, has reached a finding that tech giant Google had abused its dominance over its Android operating system with the use of financial factors to strong arm competitors. The CCI found that Google had limited the \u201cability and incentive of device manufacturers to develop and sell devices operating on alternative versions of Android\u201d. However, it is said that senior CCI members will scrutinise the report, affording an extra opportunity to Google to counter the allegations, and thereafter choose to include penalties or not.<\/p>\n
The Federal District Court of Minnesota has dismissed a motion by four large beef packer companies to dismiss a class action antitrust lawsuit, finding that the plaintiffs had plausibly pled that the defendants had supressed fed cattle prices and increased the price of beef. The plaint alleges a violation of the Sherman Act by way of a price fixing conspiracy, as well as other specific Acts. The case will now proceed to discovery for the plaintiffs to establish their claims.<\/p>\n
Authored by Rohan Joshua Jacob (Associate).<\/p>\n
The post reviews recent antitrust news, including BASF\u2019s legal victory in a patent licensing case and CCI\u2019s findings against Google regarding Android. It also covers a class action lawsuit on price fixing in the US beef industry.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":3,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,3822],"tags":[11452,4534,1721,11453,1278,10037,4536,127],"class_list":["post-83393","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-intellectual-property","category-ip-and-antitrust-competition","tag-antitrust-updates","tag-basf","tag-cci","tag-class-action-lawsuit","tag-competition-law","tag-google-android","tag-ingevity","tag-patent-licensing"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83393","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=83393"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83393\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":142195,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83393\/revisions\/142195"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=83393"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=83393"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=83393"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}