Paul’s antitrust practice covers products and services in the pharmaceutical, health care, computer, software, paper, telecommunications, food and beverage, energy, transportation, and insurance sectors. He has litigated in high-profile antitrust matters throughout the country, involving claims such as:
- Price-fixing and other cartel activity
- Unlawful mergers and acquisitions
- Monopolization and attempted monopolization
- Unlawful tying and bundling
- Anticompetitive distribution agreements
- Unlawful patent settlements
- Group boycotts
- Price discrimination
- Counsel for defendant pharmaceutical company in antitrust class action alleging that collaboration agreements for the development and manufacture of certain HIV medications are anticompetitive. A motion to dismiss the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' amended class action complaint was granted, in part, in 2020, and the case involving the remaining claims is ongoing. Staley et al. v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., et al. (N.D. Cal.).
- Trial counsel for New Jersey health care system in FTC action to block its merger with a general acute care hospital. FTC's motion for a preliminary injunction is currently pending, after a 7-day evidentiary hearing in the District of New Jersey. FTC v. Hackensack Meridian Health, Inc., et al. (D.N.J.).
- Trial counsel for Philadelphia-based hospital system in proceedings brought by FTC and the Pennsylvania Attorney General to block a proposed hospital merger worth $599 million. After a 6-day evidentiary hearing in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the district court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction and the government plaintiffs abandoned the merger challenge. This ended the FTC's winning streak in hospital merger cases dating back to 1999. FTC et al. v. Thomas Jefferson University et al. (E.D. Pa.).
- Counsel to a large health care company and liaison counsel for defendants in an antitrust class action involving allegations of price fixing. In July 2018, the district court granted preliminary approval to a class action settlement. In re Blood Reagents Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.).
- Co-counsel for pharmaceutical company in enforcement action alleging violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act by brand name and generic manufacturers of testosterone medication. The district court dismissed the conspiracy claim, and the case proceeded to trial on a theory of “sham” patent litigation. Federal Trade Commission v. AbbVie, Inc. (E.D. Pa.). The Third Circuit reversed the judgment for the FTC and the remedy of disgorgement was vacated.
- Co-counsel to pharmaceutical company and liaison counsel for defendants in antitrust class action involving claims of anticompetitive patent settlements brought by direct and indirect purchasers of cholesterol medication. In re Niaspan Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.).
- Counsel for plaintiff wireless phone manufacturer in antitrust monopolization claim, alleging anticompetitive conduct by holder of patents declared to be essential to certain cellular standards. Settled. Microsoft Mobile, Inc., et al. v. InterDigital, Inc., et al. (D. Del.).
- Counsel to pharmaceutical company and co-counsel to a pharmacy benefits manager in antitrust class action, alleging unlawful monopsony conduct in drug reimbursement rates. In re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.).
- Counsel to pharmaceutical company in California Superior Court, involving nationwide price-fixing allegations against numerous brand name drug manufacturers. Summary judgment granted to defendants on all counts, and decision upheld on appeal. Clayworth v. Pfizer, et al. (Cal. Sup. Ct.).
- Counsel to a distributor of dental products in antitrust class action stemming from a DOJ enforcement action. The case involved allegedly unlawful exclusive distribution agreements. In re Dentsply Antitrust Litigation (D. Del.). Dismissal affirmed by Third Circuit.
- Counsel to chemical company in litigation alleging an agreement to suppress generic competition in cough and cold medication. Summary judgment in favor of defendants on all antitrust claims. Hi-Tech Pharmacal v. Jame Fine Chemical and Carter Wallace (D.N.J.).
- Counsel for trade association in antitrust action alleging unlawful exclusionary conduct. Settled. IDT Corporation, et al. v. Building Owners and Manager Association International, et al. (D.N.J.).
- Counsel for hospital system and affiliated ambulance service in Section 1 tying and monopolization case. Offer of judgment accepted by the plaintiff. Med Alert Ambulance Inc. v. Atlantic Health System Inc., et al. (D.N.J.).
- Co-counsel for leading paper manufacturer in price-fixing class action involving Oriented Strand Board. Settled. In re OSB Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.).
- Counsel for leading paper manufacturer in price-fixing class action and in related opt-out litigation. Settled. In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.).
- Co-counsel for athletic association in a Sherman Act case brought by owners of for-profit basketball camps; summary judgement granted in favor of defendant. Pocono Invitational Sports Camp, Inc., et al. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (E.D. Pa.).
Antitrust class actions are prominent among high-stakes civil cases, and they invariably involve complex procedural and substantive issues. Paul has served as liaison counsel and lead defense counsel in some of the largest antitrust class actions, within and outside the Third Circuit, and he has argued on behalf of antitrust defendants in a number of precedent-setting appeals, including the Third Circuit’s 2010 Dentsply decision and its 2015 Blood Reagents decision.
- Paul argued an appeal of a class certification decision on behalf of a leading health care company. The Third Circuit, in vacating the district court’s order, held for the first time that: “a plaintiff cannot rely on challenged expert testimony, when critical to class certification, to demonstrate conformity with Rule 23 unless the plaintiff also demonstrates, and the trial court finds, that the testimony satisfies the standard set out in Daubert.” Id. at 187. In re Blood Reagents Antitrust Litigation, 783 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 2015).
- Paul argued on behalf of a group of dental dealers, in an appeal of a dismissal order entered in their favor. In affirming the dismissal, the Third Circuit agreed with the district court that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged a “hub and spoke” conspiracy. Id. at 257 (“The Plaintiffs have failed to allege any facts plausibly suggesting a unity of purpose, a common design and understanding, or a meeting of the minds between and among Dentsply and all of the dealers.”). In re Dentsply Antitrust Litigation, 602 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2010).