Knobbe Martens advises its clients on a wide variety of antitrust issues. We work with clients proactively to structure a broad range of agreements to both meet the client's goals and comply with antitrust laws. Should the need arise, we have broad experience litigating many aspects of antitrust law, including monopolization, attempted monopolization, tying, group boycotts, conspiracies, exclusive dealing, restraints of trade and patent misuse.
Thanks to the strong technical and scientific backgrounds of our attorneys, we are adept at handling antitrust issues involving technology. We understand the details of our clients’ technology, giving us deep insight into the impact of the technology from both a business and legal standpoint.
We also have valuable expertise in both antitrust and intellectual property law. All our antitrust attorneys have years of experience with enforcement and procurement of intellectual property rights, so they’re able to anticipate and mitigate any perceived tension between antitrust and intellectual property laws.
With a rare blend of technical, strategic and legal leadership, Knobbe Martens effectively represents our clients' antitrust interests, while positioning the strength of their IP rights in the future.
Masimo Corp. v. Philips (D. Del. 2014)
Knobbe Martens defended Masimo against antitrust claims asserting monopolization, attempted monopolization, tying, conspiracy, group boycott and restraint of trade. Masimo filed for summary judgment on Philips’ antitrust claims, and 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. (https://www.knobbe.com/news/2016/11/knobbe-martens-client-masimo-enters-multi-year-business-partnership-agreement-philips)
Masimo Corp. v. Philips (D. Del. 2016)
Knobbe Martens represented Masimo in its assertion of antitrust claims asserting monopolization, attempted monopolization and restraint of trade. The parties settled the dispute as part of their settlement of patent infringement claims and Philips’ antitrust and patent infringement claims.
Masimo Corp. v. Shenzhen Mindray and Mindray DS USA (C.D. Cal. & D.N.J. 2015)
Knobbe Martens defended Masimo against antitrust claims asserting monopolization, attempted monopolization, conspiracy, group boycott, tying and restraint of trade. Knobbe Martens also assisted Masimo in its defense against antitrust claims in China. Shortly before trial 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.