(United States Federal Circuit) - Partially affirming, partially reversing, partially vacating, and remanding a case in which the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee appealed a decision of the US Court of International Trade affirming the scope of the US Department of Commerce ruling holding that Whirlpoo's kitchen appliance door handles with end caps don't fall within the scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Defendant appealed from a judgement of the US Court of International Trade in favor of plaintiff. The Court of Appeals held that the Court of International Trade lacked jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs claims and reversed the judgement. The Appeals court concluded that jurisdiction under 28 USC section 1581 may not be invoked until administrative remedies are exhausted.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Appeal from US Court of International Trade (ITC). Plaintiffs sought preliminary injunction to bar enforcement of Presidentially imposed tariff. ITC denied preliminary injunction and appeals court affirmed. The President has authority under Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose tariffs and where a statute authorizes a Presidential determination, courts have no authority to look behind that determination to see if it is support by the record.

(United States Supreme Court) - The US Supreme Court held that American Express (Amex) anti-steering provisions, in its agreement with merchants to prohibit merchants who take Amex cards from discouraging customers from using their cards in order for the merchant to avoid paying Amex a fee, do not violate the Sherman Antitrust Act.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed a criminal conviction for violating antitrust laws where the defendant was convicted of conspiring to suppress and restrain competition by rigging bids. Defendant argued that the matter should be adjudicated under a rule-of-reason analysis. However, because bid rigging is a per-se violation of the Sherman Act, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not err by refusing to allow evidence of the alleged ameliorative effects of his conduct.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part and vacated in part the dismissal of antitrust and state law claims of golf caddies who participated in the PGA Tour, who were required to wear bibs containing advertisements. The court reasoned that the caddies consented to wearing the bibs when they filled out the participation form and that they had not alleged plausible product markets to support antitrust claims. The court, however, vacated the decision to deny leave to amend caddies’ complaint.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reinstated an antitrust claim against a wholly owned natural gas subsidiary that said it had no knowledge of its parent company's alleged price-fixing scheme that had pumped up the price of gas. The subsidiary argued that it could not be held liable for violating Wisconsin antitrust law because it was not involved in anything unlawful that its parent company may have done. Unpersuaded, the Ninth Circuit emphasized that a parent and a wholly owned subsidiary always act as a single enterprise whenever they engage in coordinated activity, and thus reversed the grant of summary judgment to the subsidiary.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed that magazine publishers did not violate antitrust laws by trying to drive a wholesaler out of business. The wholesaler delivered magazines to retail stores and it alleged that when it tried to impose a surcharge on the publishers in 2009, they conspired to boycott and drive the wholesaler out of business. On appeal, the Second Circuit found that the wholesaler had presented insufficient evidence of a boycott scheme to survive summary judgment. The panel also affirmed summary judgment against the publishers' counterclaims.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed that the U.S. Olympic Committee and USA Track and Field did not violate antitrust law by imposing advertising restrictions during the Olympic Trials. A chewing gum company that wished to pay to display its logo on athletes' apparel brought this suit to challenge the advertising restrictions. Rejecting the company's arguments, the Ninth Circuit held that the defendant organizations were entitled to implied antitrust immunity on the basis that their advertising restrictions were integral to performance of their duties under the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a private antitrust action brought by consumers seeking to enjoin the largest U.S. beer producer from acquiring the second largest. The consumers argued in this action brought under section 7 of the Clayton Act that the merger would lessen competition in the U.S. beer market. Concluding that they failed to state a claim, the Ninth Circuit emphasized that the U.S. Department of Justice, as a condition of approving the merger, had required the company being acquired to divest entirely its domestic beer business.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an antitrust lawsuit was barred by the act-of-state doctrine. The plaintiff corporations alleged that a Mexican-government-owned salt production company engaged in an antitrust conspiracy with a Japanese company. Affirming dismissal of the complaint, the Ninth Circuit held that the lawsuit was fundamentally a challenge to Mexico's determination about the exploitation of its own natural resources and thus was barred by the act-of-state doctrine, which precludes adjudication of the sovereign acts of other nations in U.S. courts.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of two putative antitrust class actions alleging that a pharmaceutical company took steps to block the entry of generic versions of its leukemia-treatment drug into the U.S. market. The plaintiffs, including several labor union benefit funds, claimed that the drugmaker engaged in anticompetitive conduct by bringing sham infringement lawsuits against manufacturers trying to enter the market with generic versions of that drug. Dismissing the complaints, the district court held that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged their claims, and the First Circuit affirmed.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a liquor distributor's claim under the RICO statute against other liquor distributors. The New York metropolitan area's exclusive distributor for many leading brands of liquor brought this suit alleging that two of Maryland's largest liquor distributors were smuggling liquor into New York, cutting into its sales. The district court dismissed the case because the smuggling operation, as alleged, did not directly cause the plaintiff to lose sales, and therefore the plaintiff did not adequately allege proximate cause under RICO. Agreeing, the Second Circuit affirmed.

(United States Third Circuit) - Reinstated a medical device seller's claim that certain Blue Cross Blue Shield health insurance companies violated antitrust law by unreasonably restraining trade in the national market for outpatient cardiac monitors. The seller of a cardiac monitoring device contended that it was shut out of the market because the defendants conspired to deny insurance coverage for its product to shield themselves from patient demand for it. Holding that the seller stated a claim under section 1 of the Sherman Act, the Third Circuit reversed dismissal of the complaint and remanded for further proceedings.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the People's claim alleging that the owner of a tobacco smoke shop on Indian lands was liable under California's Unfair Competition Law for violating various laws applicable to cigarette sales and marketing. Reverse an order granting summary adjudication to the People on this claim.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - In a case involving states' power to regulate liquor sales, held that the plaintiffs stated a claim that Illinois unlawfully refused to license out-of-state retailers to ship liquor to consumers in the state, in violation of the Commerce Clause and Privileges and Immunities Clause. Reversed a dismissal and remanded.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that the Federal Trade Commission Act could support an order compelling an online payday lender to pay more than $1 billion in monetary relief for unfair business practices. Two of the judges on the Ninth Circuit panel filed a concurring opinion to suggest that the court should rehear the case en banc to reconsider relevant circuit precedent.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of antitrust claims brought against two manufacturers of a material called containerboard that is used to make boxes. Held that there was not enough evidence of a conspiracy to proceed to trial on the purchasers' claims under the Sherman Act that the companies conspired to increase prices and reduce output.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a healthcare antitrust case, affirmed a protective order that said certain confidential business documents belonging to a non-party health insurer should be unsealed (but redacted) if and when they are filed on the public docket. The non-party sought stronger confidentiality protections.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Revived a RICO lawsuit brought by importers of garlic who alleged that rival importers had conspired to harm their businesses. Reversed a dismissal in relevant part and remanded.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - In a dispute between two companies in the agriculture-related biotechnology field, affirmed in part and reversed in part a judgment after a jury trial. The case involved antitrust claims, patent infringement claims and an alleged breach of a confidentiality agreement.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - The Fifth Circuit transferred a case back to the Federal Circuit, from which it had been transferred. The two circuits disagreed about which one was the proper forum for this appeal, which involved a company's claim that a competitor violated antitrust law by obtaining a patent through fraud.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that Connecticut law governing liquor pricing is not preempted by federal antitrust law. Affirmed the dismissal of a liquor retailer's complaint, which challenged certain provisions of Connecticut's Liquor Control Act and related regulations.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion, in a lawsuit accusing certain organizations and individuals of attempting to restrain trade and monopolize a city's medical marijuana market.

(United States DC Circuit) - Held that the federal government could not block a proposed merger between AT&T and Time Warner. The government had sued to enjoin the vertical merger on the basis that it would have anticompetitive effects. However, the D.C. Circuit agreed with the district court's conclusion that the government's evidence was insufficient, and affirmed the denial of a permanent injunction.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that the Louisiana Real Estate Appraisers Board's petition for review was premature in a case where the Federal Trade Commission had charged it with adopting an unlawful policy that restrained trade. Dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a manufacturer of medical syringes that falsely advertised its products did not have to disgorge its profits. That remedy would not be equitable under the circumstances here. Affirmed a post-trial ruling, in this lawsuit brought by a competing syringe manufacturer that also involved antitrust claims.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a company offering bar exam review courses did not plausibly plead that a competitor conspired with certain law schools to enable it to obtain a monopoly. Affirmed the dismissal of this antitrust lawsuit.

(United States Second Circuit) - Plaintiff brought suit against three dental supply distributors alleging that they conspired to violate antitrust laws. The trial court dismissed plaintiff's antitrust claims for lack of standing and tort claims for failure to state a claim. Second circuit affirmed the dismissal of the antitrust claims, but vacated the judgment for the tort claims. The case was remanded back to the district court for further proceedings.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld sanctions that the Department of Motor Vehicles imposed on a car dealer. The dealer should have returned buyers' down payments when it repossessed the cars after the buyers failed to obtain financing.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that consumers could proceed with an antitrust lawsuit alleging that Apple Inc. used monopolistic power to overcharge for iPhone apps. Apple contended that the lawsuit was barred because the consumers were not "direct purchasers" within the meaning of the Illinois Brick case. However, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Apple's argument in a 5-4 decision, on review of a dismissal ruling. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the majority opinion, joined by the four liberal justices.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - District court's granting of summary judgment and bench verdict for Defendant affirmed. Sherman Act claim fails where the only current feasible way to comply with Chicagoland area city commercial fire safety ordinances was to use an exclusive provider. Under Fisher v. City of Berkeley, government restraints on trade imposed unilaterally do not form the basis of a Section 1 or Section 2 claim.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed. Finding the plaintiffs plausibly alleged interlocking agreements injured competition, the panel reversed the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim in an antitrust action brought by a class of subscribers to DirecTV’s NFL Sunday Ticket.

(United States Second Circuit) - Vacated & remanded. Finding the circumstances of these plaintiffs to be materially different from those in In re Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litig., the panel held that the district court erred in concluding the plaintiffs failed to establish antitrust standing.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. The application of the Commodity Exchange Act to alleged misconduct in trading of crude oil extracted from Europe’s North Sea is impermissibly extraterritorial.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed a sentence for possessing a firearm while subject to a qualifying court restraining order. The defendant, who had pleaded guilty, argued that the district court failed to properly consider mitigating factors in sentencing him to 33 months. The First Circuit found no error in his sentence.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed summary judgment against a homeowner's claim that Wells Fargo Bank breached the terms of a federal Truth-in-Lending Act class action settlement. The homeowner claimed that the bank was contractually obligated under the settlement to modify his mortgage contract to help him stave off default. However, the First Circuit held that the homeowner did not qualify for the relief provided in the settlement, agreeing with the district court.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed the denial of an asylum claim in a case where an immigrant claimed mistreatment in Honduras because of her Afro-Honduran race and physical disability caused by polio. The Board of Immigration Appeals rejected her asylum application upon finding that the harassment she endured in Honduras did not rise to the level of persecution. Agreeing with the Board's assessment, the First Circuit denied her petition for judicial review.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed a 120-month prison sentence for possession of child pornography. The defendant, who had pleaded guilty, argued that the district court improperly imposed certain enhancements to his base offense level. However, the First Circuit found no clear error.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed summary judgment which had denied an employee's Title VII gender discrimination and retaliation claims. A field sales representative for a company in the medical field alleged she was denied a promotion based on her sex and that she was fired in retaliation for asserting her Title VII rights. However, the First Circuit concluded that she failed to present sufficient evidence of unlawful conduct to create a genuine factual dispute.

(United States First Circuit) - Reinstated an employee's claims that she was harassed based on her age and retaliated against in violation of both federal and Puerto Rico law, claims which had been dismissed on summary judgment. The employee argued that there were genuine disputes of material fact. In reversing summary judgment, the First Circuit agreed with the employee's argument that genuine disputes of material fact existed as to certain claims.

(United States First Circuit) - Reinstated a lawsuit alleging that an insurance company wrongfully denied coverage to a hospital medical director under a Directors and Officers insurance policy. The insurer argued that the loss was not within the scope of the insurance policy because it pre-dated the policy. Unpersuaded, the First Circuit vacated the entry of summary judgment for the insurer and remanded the case for further proceedings.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed the denial of a medically ill defendant's request for a downward departure under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The defendant, who had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess five kilograms or more of cocaine with intent to distribute, sought a shorter sentence due to his chronic liver ailments. However, the First Circuit found no abuse of discretion in the sentence of 180 months.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed the denial of habeas relief to a defendant who challenged his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The defendant argued that his designation as an armed career criminal was unconstitutional under recent Supreme Court precedent, but the First Circuit disagreed, holding that current law still considers three of his convictions to be ACCA predicates.

(United States First Circuit) - Rejected a petition for review of a decision of the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB). The basic issue here was whether a local government could regulate certain activities at a rail-to-truck transloading facility. The petitioners, who lived near the facility, argued that the STB did not have exclusive jurisdiction and thus local regulation was permitted. Finding no basis to reverse the STB's ruling regarding the scope of its exclusive jurisdiction, the First Circuit rejected the petition for review.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed that a defendant who had violated the conditions of his supervised release by possessing illegal drugs could be re-imprisoned notwithstanding his argument that his drug addiction was a disease. According to the defendant, sentencing him to a new term of imprisonment for manifesting a condition of his disease constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. However, the First Circuit found no support in its precedent for his argument, emphasizing that he had violated the terms of his supervised release by failing three drug tests and being convicted of a state law charge of felony drug possession.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed the conviction and sentence of a former Puerto Rico superior court judge for receiving bribes and participating in a conspiracy to bribe an agent of an organization receiving federal funds. On appeal, the former judge cited a number of alleged trial and sentencing errors, including the upholding of a witness's invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege. However, the First Circuit found no reversible error and affirmed.

(United States First Circuit) - Held that a Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority bondholder did not hold a statutory lien on certain toll revenues. The bondholder contended that, in response to Puerto Rico's financial crisis, the Puerto Rican government was diverting toll revenues to which the bondholder was entitled under a lien and using them for purposes other than paying the bonds. However, the First Circuit concluded that the bondholder held no statutory lien on the toll revenues.

(United States First Circuit) - Vacated an order denying a request by Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) bondholders for relief from an automatic stay. The bondholders argued that a statute enacted by Congress to address Puerto Rico's financial crisis did not preclude them from obtaining relief so that they could petition another court to place PREPA into receivership. Agreeing, the First Circuit held that the district court erred in concluding otherwise.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed a sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and heroin. A man who pleaded guilty after police caught him couriering drugs cross-country in his backpack challenged the length of his sentence. Rejecting his arguments, the First Circuit emphasized that the district court found him to be a career offender but sentenced him to a below-guidelines term of 78 months in prison.