People of the State of California v. Econolite Control Products, Inc. (Ca. Super Ct. Los Angeles 2004)
Plaintiff state alleged tying of non-proprietary traffic signal equipment to proprietary signal controllers. After trial, final judgment for the state was entered in 2007.
People v. J.A. Momaney Services, Inc., No. 03426723 (San Francisco Superior Court 2003)
Challenge to tie-in sales of certain traffic signal equipment in bids to California public entities.
New York v. Microsoft Corp., 97 F. Supp. 2d 59 (D.D.C. 2000)
U.S. Department of Justice and the Plaintiff States alleged that the Defendant, Microsoft Corporation violated State and Federal law by maintaining a monopoly in the market for Intel-compatible personal computer operating systems and by illegally tying its Windows operating system to its Internet Explorer browser.
In re Mid-Atlantic Toyota Antitrust Litigation, 560 F. Supp. 760 (D. Md. 1983); 605 F. Supp 440 (D. Md 1984)
Plaintiff States sought damages, alleging defendant distributors and dealers conspired to set the prices for which Toyota automobiles were sold among various dealerships.
In re Clozapine Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 874 (N.D. Ill. 1991)
Plaintiff States sought monetary damages and injunctive relief against Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corporation (Sandoz), alleging the company unlawfully required those who purchased its drug, Clozapine, to also purchase distribution and patient monitoring services from Sandoz.
Virginia v. Winslow, 1987-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) 67,458 (Ch. Ct. Va. 1987)
Virginia sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendants Joseph R. Winslow, Elm Farm Associates, LP, Winslow, Inc., Jerry C. Faircloth, A.A. Mobile Market, Inc. conspired to create an illegal tying arrangement, requiring lessees of land in either of Defendants two mobile home parks to also purchase a mobile home from A.A. Mobile Market, Inc.
Texas v. American Modern Lloyds, et al, Cause No. 97-08284, (353rd Jud. Dist. Ct., Travis County, Texas 1997)
State of Texas sued for civil fine and injunction alleging defendants required single and multiple lot manufactured home dealers to purchase “open lot” dealer inventory coverage as a condition of purchasing a business owners policy; allocated manufactured dealers to a particular sales representative agent, and entered into an agreement to fix the price for insurance for manufactured home dealers.
Pennsylvania v. John’s Mobile Home Service, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 90-4472 (M.D. Pa. Filed July 9, 1990)
Tying of mobile home spaces to purchase of mobile homes.
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
