Table Of Cases
| Pages | 253-288 |
253
TABLE OF CASES
A
A.D. Bedell Wholesale Co. v. Philip Morris In
c., 263
F.3d 239 (3d Cir. 2001)
..........................................
145, 148, 154, 156
AB Volvo v. Erik Veng (UK) Ltd., 1988 E.C.R. 6211
.........................233
AD/SAT v. Associated Press, 920 F. Supp. 1287
(S.D.N.Y. 1996)
........................................................................
85, 171
Addamax Corp. v. Open Software Found., 152 F.3d 48
(1st Cir. 1998)
.............................................................
25, 36, 127, 1
73
Addamax Corp. v. Open Software Found., 964 F. Supp.
549 (D. Mass. 1997)
.......................................................................127
Addamax Corp. v. Open Software Found
.
274 (D. Mass. 1995)
.......................................................................126
Alaska Airlines v. United Airlines, 948 F.2d 536 (9th
Cir. 1991)
..........................................................................................88
Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. In
dian Head, Inc., 486
U.S. 492 (1988)
.........................
15, 16, 21, 25, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 71,
........................................................
155, 158, 159, 160, 161, 170, 175
Allright Colo., Inc. v. City
&
County of Denver, 937
F.2d 1502 (10th Cir. 1991)
.............................................................156
Alvord
-
Polk, Inc. v. F. Schumacher & Co., 37 F.3d 996
(3d C
ir. 1994)
.................................................................................171
Am. Column & Lumber v. United States, 257 U.S. 377
(1921)
......................................................................................
105, 125
Am. Cyanamid Co., 72 F.T.C. 623 (1967)
....................................
179, 182
Am. Fed
’
n of Musicians v. Carroll, 391 U.S. 99 (1968)
.......................140
Am. Soc
’
y for Testing & Materials v. Corrpro Cos., 478
F.3d 557 (3d C
ir. 2007)
............................................................
22, 171
Am
.
Council of Certified Podriatric Physicians &
Surgeons v. American Board of Podiatric Surgery,
185 F.3d 606 (6th Cir. 1999)
............................................................29
Am.
Needle, Inc. v. NFL, 130 S. Ct. 2201 (2010)
............................
29, 30
Am.
Soc
’
y
of Mech
.
Eng
’
rs
v. Hydrolevel Corp., 456
U.
S. 556 (1982)
.............................................................
16, 26, 55, 59,
......................................................................
62, 63, 64, 105, 170, 187
254
Handbook on the Antitrust Aspects of Standard Setting
Am.
Soc
’
y
of Sanitary Eng
’
g, 106 F.T.C. 324 (1985)
..
108, 109, 187, 188
Amerinet, Inc. v. Xerox Corp., 972 F.2d 1483 (8th Cir.
1992)
...............................................................................................172
Amey, Inc. v. Gulf Abstract & Title, Inc., 758 F.2d 1486
(11th
Cir. 1985)
................................................................................70
Armstrong Surgical Ctr. v. Armstrong County, 185 F.3d
154 (3d Cir. 1999)
..........................................................
158, 163, 165
Arroyo
-
Melecio v. Puerto Rican Am. Ins. Co., 398 F.3d
56 (1st Cir. 2005)
............................................................................147
Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472
U.S. 585 (1985)
..............................................................
109, 110
, 111
Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1 (1945)
.......
31, 52, 109, 111
Atl. Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co., 495 U.S. 328
(1990)
..............................................................................................172
Attheraces Ltd. v. British Race Bd
.
, 2007 EWCA Civ.
38, 2007 UKCLR 309
.....................................................................230
Aurora Cable
Commc
’
ns
v. Jones Intercabl
e, Inc., 720 F.
Supp. 600 (W.D. Mich. 1989)
........................................................158
Automated Salvage Transp. v. Wheelabrator Envtl. Sys.,
155 F.3d 59 (2d Cir. 1998)
.............................................................156
B
Bates v. State Bar of Ariz., 433 U.S. 350 (1977)
..........................
149, 150
Belasco v. Comm
’
n, 1989 E.C.R. 2181
................................................211
Berger v. Cuyahoga C
ounty Bar Ass
’
n, 983 F.2d 718
(6th Cir. 1993)
................................................................................146
Berkey Photo v. Eastman Kodak Co., 603 F.2d 263 (2d
Cir. 1979)
..................................................................
75, 84, 87, 88, 89
Besser Mfg. Co. v. United States, 343 U.S. 444 (1952)
........................179
Billing v. Credit Suisse First Boston Ltd., 426 F.3d 130
(2d Cir.
2005), rev
’
d, 551 U.S. 264 (2007)
............................
143, 144
BNIC v. Clair, 1985 E.C.R. 391
............................................................239
Bolt v. Halifax Hosp. Med. Ctr., 891 F.2d 810 (11th Cir.
1990)
...............................................................................................146
Bond Crown & Cork Co. v. FTC, 176 F.2d 974 (4th Cir.
1949)
................................................................................................
.
15
Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litig.,
I
n re
,
186 F.3d 781 (7th Cir. 1999)
..........................................................157
Brandt v. Am. Bar Ass
’
n, No. 3:96
-
cv
-
2606
-
D, 1997
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23927, at *2
-
3 (N.D. Tex. 1997)
.......................160
Table of Cases
255
Brant v. U.S. Polo Ass
’
n, 631 F. Supp. 71 (S.D. Fla.
1986)
.............................................................................
38, 52, 72, 191
Brenner v. World Boxing Council, 675 F.
2d 445 (2d Cir.
1982)
................................................................................................
.
38
Bristol
-
Myers Squibb Co., FTC File Nos. 001 0221, 011
0044 and 021 018, FTC Dkt. No. 6
-
4076 (F.T.C.
March 7, 2003)
.................................................................................21
British Broad
.
Corp
.
&
BBC Enter
s.
Ltd. (BBC) v.
Comm
’
n, 1991 E.C.R. II
-
535
.........................................................233
Broadcast Music v. CBS, 441 U.S.
1 (1979)
...........................
39, 131, 137
Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 501 F.3d 297 (3d
Cir. 2007)
................................................................
120, 121, 122, 180
Brooke Group v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.,
509 U.S. 209 (1993)
..................................................................
81, 125
Brookins v. Int
’
l Motor Contest Ass
’
n, 219 F.3d 849 (8th
Cir. 2000)
..........................................................................................47
Bruns
wick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl
-O-
Mat, Inc., 429 U.S.
477 (1977)
.......................................................................................172
C
C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Systems, 157 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir.
1998)
................................................................................................
.
91
Cal. Computer Prods. v. IBM Corp., 613 F.2d 727 (9th
Cir. 1979)
..................................................................................
89, 193
Cal. Dental Ass
’
n v. FTC, 524 U.S. 980 (1998)
...........................
186, 1
92
Cal. Dental Ass
’
n v. FTC, 526 U.S. 756 (1999)
.............
10, 43, 44, 45, 71
Cal. Dental Ass
’
n, 121 F.T.C. 190 (1996)
....................................186, 192
Cal. Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S.
508 (1972)
.......................................................
154, 155, 156, 158,
164
Cal. Retail Liquor Dealers Ass
’
n v. Midcal Alumi
num,
445 U.S. 97 (1980)
.................................................
147, 148, 149, 151
Cal. State Bd. of Optometry v. FTC, 910 F.2d 976 (D.C.
Cir. 1990)
........................................................................................156
Caldera, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 72 F. Supp. 2d 1295 (D.
Utah 1999)
........................................................................................91
Cantor v. Detroit Edison Co., 428 U.S. 579 (1976)
..............................151
Cardtoons, L.C. v
. Major League Baseball Players Ass
’n,
208 F.3d 885 (10th Cir. 2000)
........................................................161
Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colo., Inc., 479 U.S. 104
(1986)
................................................................................................81
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting