Overview
Knobbe Martens’ Antitrust & Competition practice combines deep intellectual property experience with sophisticated antitrust insight to help clients navigate complex competitive landscapes. The firm advises companies operating in innovation-driven and technology-focused markets where antitrust and IP issues frequently intersect, including matters involving monopolization, restraints of trade, exclusive dealing, tying, bundling, price-related conduct, and patent misuse. Our lawyers understand how antitrust law affects the development, licensing, enforcement, and commercialization of intellectual property.
With strong technical and scientific backgrounds across the firm, Knobbe Martens’ lawyers quickly grasp complex products, technologies, and business models. This allows us to provide practical, business-oriented guidance that aligns antitrust compliance and risk management with our clients’ broader commercial and strategic objectives. We are particularly adept at addressing cutting-edge issues at the intersection of competition law and IP rights.
Antitrust & Competition Litigation
Knobbe Martens litigates antitrust and competition disputes involving high-stakes business and intellectual property interests. The firm represents clients in claims and defenses involving monopolization and attempted monopolization, conspiracies and group boycotts, exclusive dealing arrangements, tying and bundling practices, price fixing, restraints of trade, and related unfair competition issues. Our lawyers regularly handle antitrust counterclaims asserted in connection with patent infringement and other IP enforcement actions.
Drawing on decades of experience enforcing and defending intellectual property rights, Knobbe Martens is particularly effective in disputes where antitrust allegations are intertwined with patent misuse, licensing practices, or competitive conduct tied to innovation. Our litigation teams are agile and strategic, anticipating how antitrust issues may evolve over the course of a dispute and positioning clients to defend their market positions while protecting valuable IP assets.
Antitrust & Competition Counseling
In addition to litigation, Knobbe Martens provides proactive antitrust and competition counseling to help clients minimize risk and structure compliant business strategies. The firm advises on a wide range of commercial agreements and practices, including licensing, distribution, collaboration, and other arrangements that implicate competition laws. Our counseling focuses on striking the right balance between achieving business objectives and complying with applicable antitrust requirements.
Knobbe Martens’ lawyers work closely with clients to identify potential antitrust issues early and develop practical solutions tailored to their industries and technologies. By integrating antitrust considerations with IP strategy, we help clients pursue innovation, growth, and enforcement initiatives with greater confidence and reduced exposure to antitrust challenges.
Co-Chairs
Representative Experience
Masimo Corp. v. Philips (D. Del.)
Defended Masimo against antitrust claims asserting monopolization, attempted monopolization, tying, conspiracy, group boycott and restraint of trade. Also represented Masimo in its assertion of antitrust claims of monopolization, attempted monopolization and restraint of trade against Philips. Masimo filed for summary judgment on Philips’ antitrust claims. The parties thereafter settled the dispute, which also involved patent infringement claims, for a lump sum payment of $300 million to Masimo and a business relationship involving the availability of Masimo technology in Philips products.
Masimo Corp. v. Shenzhen Mindray and Mindray DS USA (C.D. Cal. & D.N.J.)
Defended Masimo against antitrust claims asserting monopolization, attempted monopolization, conspiracy, group boycott, tying and restraint of trade. Assisted Masimo in its defense against antitrust claims in China. Shortly before trial commenced in California, Mindray agreed to settle the dispute, which also involved patent infringement claims, for a $25 million payment to Masimo and a business relationship involving the availability of Masimo technology in Mindray’s products.
