Antitrust – Intellectual Property| BakerHostetler

BakerHostetler’s Antitrust and Competition team works with the firm’s Intellectual Property Practice Group to protect and advance clients’ business objectives from both intellectual property and competition law perspectives. We have significant experience advising on and litigating matters involving the anticompetitive misuse of intellectual property rights, including claims related to standard-essential patents, licensing practices and other conduct affecting competitive markets. Our team helps companies minimize antitrust litigation and enforcement risk across the full lifecycle of IP innovation.

Antitrust case against Brita and its parent company Clorox alleging violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, for monopolization of water filtration systems connected to Brita and Clorox’s alleged failure to disclose a patent to a standard-setting organization and other industry participants. Case settled on favorable terms for our client. Zero Water v. Brita & Clorox
Multidistrict class-action lawsuit in the Eastern District of Tennessee where dairy farmers and retailers accused major processors such as Dean Foods and Dairy Farmers of America of conspiring to fix raw milk prices and restrict competition in the Southeast U.S., leading to settlements exceeding $300 million and significant business practice changes. In re Southeastern Milk Antitrust Litigation
Baker Hughes engaged the firm to replace prior counsel and resuscitate a dormant patent-related antitrust counterclaim. Our team investigated the matter, reformulated the antitrust claims and re-did discovery and experts to support reformulated claims of monopolization of chemicals used in the petroleum industry, based on patent misuse, exclusive contracting and acquisition of competitors. Extremely favorable settlement finalized in early 2025. Baker Hughes v. Liquid Specialty Products, Inc. (SDTX)
Class action lawsuit on behalf of dairy farmers in the Northeast alleging that Dean Foods and Dairy Farmers of America conspired to fix raw milk prices and restrict competition in the Northeast U.S. Case resulted in settlements of $100 million. Allen v. Dairy Farmers of America Inc.
APL, part of the world’s largest ocean transport companies, engaged us to investigate its competitor’s tactics in the South Pacific. We prepared monopolization claims against Matson, based on boycott, retaliation and use of exclusive dealing and bundled rebates, which was vigorously litigated to summary judgment, and settlement was reached in early 2025. American President Lines v. Matson Navigation (DDC)
Antitrust case alleging that LSI (Broadcom licensing arm) violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by refusing to license patents on FRAND terms and committed additional overt acts in furtherance of its monopoly in standard essential patented technology. Case settled after we survived motion to dismiss. Funai v. LSI (Broadcom)
Represented HP in an antitrust counterclaim alleging that Audio MPEG violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by improperly organizing and implementing a patent pool with the intent of monopolizing certain MP3 technology. Case settled. Audio MPEG, US Philips Corp. et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.
Represent Syngenta, one of the world’s leading crop protection companies, in a case alleging its competitor has monopolized an active ingredient for crop protection products, based on patent misuse, litigation campaign, asset acquisitions, product tying and customer threats. Motion to dismiss pending. Syngenta Crop Protection AG v. ULP
Represent Fluorofusion, an advanced refrigerant gas manufacturer, in a monopolization and restraint of trade case, alleging its competitors used intellectual property to tie and impose exclusive dealing to exclude our client’s products. Motion to dismiss pending. Fluorofusion Specialty Chemicals, Inc., et al. v. The Chemours Co., et al
Represented Strive, a compounding pharmacy, against two dominant U.S. manufacturers of branded GLP-1 drugs, in a case alleging violations of the Section 1 of the Sherman Act as well as Section 2 violations against Eli Lilly. Strive v. Eli Lilly & Novo Nordisk.
Multidistrict litigation, in which 10 antitrust suits were consolidated in this court for pretrial proceedings and retained for trial, involved a conspiracy dating from the mid-1950s on the part of a group of defendant railroads to monopolize the dock handling, storage and land transportation of iron ore along lower Lake Erie. The ultimate verdicts amounted to $638.5 million. In re Lower Lake Erie Iron Ore Antitrust Litigation