Stefan M. Meisner Stefan M. Meisner

Subscribe to Stefan M. Meisner's Posts
Stefan M. Meisner provides legal services to clients in connection with antitrust matters and electronic discovery issues. Stefan focuses his antitrust practice on complex, multidistrict class action litigation alleging Sherman Act violations, US Department of Justice (DOJ) investigations, merger investigations and intellectual property issues. He counsels clients on the antitrust implications of patent licensing and settlements of infringement litigation. In addition, he counsels clients on global strategies for addressing cartel prosecutions and defenses, from the inception of government investigations, to the initiation of civil class action litigation in a variety of jurisdictions. Read Stefan M. Meisner's full bio.

If Past is Prologue, Ramped up Antitrust Compliance is Critical


By and on Jun 17, 2020
Posted In Cartel Enforcement, DOJ Developments, FTC Developments

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought not only a healthcare crisis, but also one of the worst economic downturns in history. As businesses emerge from this crisis, there may be increased risk that employees may cross the line and engage in anticompetitive conduct. Therefore, it is critical that companies and individuals prepare now to ensure that...

Continue Reading



Government Amicus Efforts Show Antitrust Policy Via Advocacy


By , and on May 22, 2020
Posted In Distribution/Franchising, DOJ Developments, FTC Developments, IP Antitrust

Under the administration of President Donald Trump, the US Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division has significantly ramped up its private litigation amicus program. The Antitrust Division has filed an increasing number of amicus briefs and statements of interest at the appellate and district court levels in an effort to influence the development of antitrust law....

Continue Reading



Third Circuit: “Rigorous Analysis” Required for Class Certification in Antitrust Cases


By , , and on May 21, 2020
Posted In Private Litigation

The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently concluded in In re Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation that a district court’s reliance on average prices to determine class-wide impact was insufficient. Instead, courts must conduct a rigorous analysis of the facts, evidence and expert testimony at the class certification stage of litigation. Access Full Article

Continue Reading



2019 in Review: Overview of Cartel Investigations


By , , and on Mar 18, 2020
Posted In Cartel Enforcement, DOJ Developments, EC Developments, EU Developments, Private Litigation

The Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ) was active in 2019. At the beginning of 2019, the DOJ was preparing for trial in six matters and had 91 pending grand jury investigations. Throughout 2019, the DOJ made public several new investigations, including in the commercial flooring industry, online auctions for surplus government equipment, the insulation...

Continue Reading



Close Scrutiny for Class Settlements Where Plaintiff Attorneys Take Lion’s Share


By , , , and on Jan 27, 2020
Posted In Cartel Enforcement, Private Litigation

Two recent US antitrust class action settlements drew additional scrutiny from federal judges, showing that the allocation of settlement funds between a proposed class and their attorneys will be carefully reviewed for fairness to class members.

Continue Reading



The Latest: New DOJ Antitrust Division Policy Makes Compliance Programs More Critical than Ever


By , and on Jul 16, 2019
Posted In Cartel Enforcement, DOJ Developments

What Happened: Last week, the Antitrust Division reported that it has changed its Justice Manual to state that it will consider antitrust compliance at the charging stage in criminal antitrust investigations, instead of waiting for plea negotiation or the sentencing stage. Previously, the Antitrust Division had granted leniency only to the first whistleblower to come...

Continue Reading



Texas Court Declares Licensing Offer Based on End Device Is FRAND, Diverges from California Court in Qualcomm


By , and on Jun 3, 2019
Posted In IP Antitrust, Private Litigation

Standard-essential patent holders and implementers may face uncertainty regarding licensing practices following a May 23 Texas court ruling. In the ruling, a Texas federal judge reached a conclusion different from a recent California court decision—FTC v. Qualcomm—on the question of whether an SEP holder must base its royalty rates on the “smallest salable patent-practicing unit”...

Continue Reading



Federal Judge Finds Qualcomm Violated the FTC Act Through Monopolistic and Exclusionary Conduct


By , and on May 23, 2019
Posted In FTC Developments, IP Antitrust, Monopolization/Abuse of Dominance

On May 21, a California federal judge ruled in favor of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in its suit against Qualcomm in a much-anticipated decision, concluding that Qualcomm violated the FTC Act by maintaining its monopoly position as a modem chip supplier through a number of exclusionary practices, including refusing to license standard essential patents...

Continue Reading



Federal Jury Finds that Ericsson’s Licensing Offer to HTC is FRAND


By , and on Feb 25, 2019
Posted In IP Antitrust

On February 15, a Texas federal jury found that Ericsson did not breach its obligation to offer HTC licenses to its standard-essential patents (SEPs) on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. The verdict ended a nearly two-year dispute as to whether FRAND obligations preclude a licensing offer based on end products rather than components. Ericsson...

Continue Reading



District Court: IPR Policy Does Not Automatically Require License Fees Based on Components


By , and on Feb 12, 2019
Posted In IP Antitrust

The US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ruled that for the purposes of honoring a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) commitment, a pool member is not required to base royalties for its standard essential patents (SEPs) on the value of components. HTC America Inc. et al. v. Ericsson Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-00243-JRG...

Continue Reading



STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES