Cooper & Kirk has an active antitrust practice. Representative engagements include:

  • The State of Texas et al. Google, LLC (E.D. Tex. 2020).                                                                              We represent the State of Montana in this action against Google for its monopolization of the online advertising technology marketplace.
  • Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 10-1482 (4th Cir. 2011).
    We represent Novell in a multi-billion-dollar antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. Novell alleges that Microsoft engaged in anticompetitive behavior which prevented its WordPerfect and Quattro Pro software from being compatible with Windows 95 and thus inflicted billions of dollars of harm on Novell.
  • Spectrum Stores, Inc. v. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, No. 09-20084 (5th Cir. 2011).
    We represented United States gasoline retailers in a suit against Venezuela’s subsidiaries alleging that they conspired with Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) member nations to fix prices of crude oil and refined petroleum products in the United States.
  • Jung v. Association of American College of Medicine, No. 02-0873 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
    We represented a nationwide class of medical residents who have sued their employers for setting salaries at below market wages. The district court rejected defendant’s motion to dismiss that the National Residency Match Program violated the Sherman Act. Congress then amended the antitrust laws and sanctioned the Match Program. The district court did not allow plaintiffs to amend the complaint to press price fixing claims. The case is now pending on appeal before the D.C. Circuit.
  • F. Hoffman-LaRoche, Ltd. v. Empagran S.A., 124 S. Ct. 2359 (2004).
    We filed an amicus brief in support of foreign victims of a cartel of vitamin producers. Our brief demonstrated that the exercise of American jurisdiction over such a controversy was fully consistent with the Department of Justice’s historical position on this issue.
  • In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation, MDL 2406. We represent subscriber plaintiffs in a class action against 36 Blue Cross Blue Shield entities and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Plaintiffs in this case allege BCBS entities have unlawfully agreed to allocate the markets in which they sell health insurance and cap the amount of unbranded health insurance they offer.
  • Advisory practice
    We have been retained to provide in-depth analysis of potential antitrust liability in a variety of contexts. These engagements have included full-scale briefing and argument before retired federal judges in assessing the strength of potential claims.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

↑ Top of Page