California v. Infineon Technologies, No. 3:06-cv-04333 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2007)
33 Plaintiff States generally alleged a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy in the U.S.
market for dynamic random access memory (“DRAM”), carried out by numerous manufacturer defendants. Samsung an
another company, Winbond, reached settlement for $113 million in 2007.. States and private parties settled with the remaining defendants for $173 million and injunctive relief.
New York v. Tele-Communications Inc., 1993 WL 527984 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 1993), 1993-2 Trade Cases P 70, 404
Defendant cable system operators, subsidiaries and a satellite cable supplier formed a monopoly in restraint of trade in the delivery of multichannel subscription television programming.
In the Matter of GlaxoSmithKline, PLC (Augmentin)
States alleged that GlaxoSmithKline fraudulently obtained patent protection for Augmentin and then delayed generic entry through sham patent litigation. Through this conduct, GlaxoSmithKline unlawfully maintained its monopoly over Augmentin. A $3.5 million multistate settlement for state proprietary claims was entered into by the participating states and GlaxoSmithKline.
In Re Relafen Antitrust Litigation
States sued manufacturer of antidepressant Relafen, alleging patent misuse and sham litigation designed to prevent generic entry. Parties settled the state proprietary claims for $10 million.
Maryland v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., No. 2:06-cv-01298-JP (E.D.Pa Mar. 27, 2006)
States sued manufacturer of antitdepressant Paxil, alleging patent misuse and sham litigation designed to prevent generic entry. Parties settled for $14 million.
Utah v. Wool Cabin, (Case No. 2005-002-0365 (settlement agreement)
State investigated allegations that Cascade Yarns, Inc. was restricting trade by refusing to sell to a retailer accused by competing retailers of undercutting market prices.
Utah v. Visual Technology, Inc. (Case No. 1999-820-254) (Settlement Agreement)
After an investigation into Visual Technology, Inc.’s bidding practices in connection with a University of Utah invitation to bid on audio visual equipment the parties reached a settlement.
Utah v. Western Dairymen Cooperative, Inc., Civ.No. 89090147 (3rd Dist. Utah 1989)
The State of Utah brought this action against Western Dairyment cooperative, Meadow Gold Dairies and others alleging price-fixing and market allocation agreements with regard to milk and milk products sold in Utah.
Utah v. Stericycle, Inc. (Civ. No. 2:03 CV 49) (D.Utah 2003)
State of Utah alleged Stericycle and BFI Waste Systems of North America colluded to allocate markets and customers in Utah, Colorado, and Arizona
Utah v. Daicel Chemical Industries, Ltd. (Civ. No. 20910931 MI) (3rd Dis. Utah, 2002)
Defendant sorbate manufacturers were charged with collusion, price-fixing and market allocation
