Distribution, Competition, and Antitrust / IP Law

N.D. Cal. Refuses Separate Direct and Indirect Trials in LCD Cases

In re: TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, No. M 07-1827 SI (May 21, 2012) (Illston, J.)

In a short order and without expressing her reasoning, Judge Illston refused to conduct separate direct purchaser and indirect purchaser trials in the LCD price-fixing class actions.  The cases will instead be tried together in May.  The direct case includes one defendant (Toshiba).  Three defendants (AU Optronics, LG Display, and Toshiba) remain in the indirect class case.

Related posts:

About Howard Ullman

Antitrust, competition, and IP law enthusiast.

Comments

  1. Stephen Cipolla says:

    Howard,
    Can you describe this case in some more detail? Is this a federal antitrust action and a Cartwright Act case being tried together in federal court? I know nothing about the details, but it seems that the trial of the case could create an enormous mess of the sort that the Illinois Brick court sought to avoid in federal antitrust cases.
    Thanks,
    Steve

    • Howard Ullman says:

      Steve, I’m not personally involved in the case, but my understanding is that the indirects are suing for damages under state (including California) law. I think it will be very interesting to see how the damages issues are sorted out. Howard

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply to Northern District of California Antitrust Roundup | My Distribution Law Cancel reply

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE
%d bloggers like this: