Paul H. Saint-Antoine

Government Antitrust Cases and Other Enforcement Actions

Paul has served as trial counsel in multiple government enforcement actions, including four FTC cases that have gone to trial since January 1, 2020.

Representative Experience

Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

• Trial counsel for a supplier of coatings applied to medical devices, in a preliminary injunction action brought by the FTC in the Northern District of Illinois to block the supplier’s sale to a private equity firm. After an eight-day trial in 2025, the district court denied the requested relief and the acquisition closed. FTC, et al. v. GTCR LLC, et al. (N.D. Ill.).
• Trial counsel for a publishing company in a consumer protection case brought by the FTC and the Pennsylvania attorney general. Following a bench trial, judgment was entered in 2024 for the defendants and against the government on all counts, and attorneys’ fees awarded to the client. FTC v. American Future Systems, Inc., et al. (E.D. Pa.).
• Trial counsel for a New Jersey health care system in an FTC action to block its merger with a general acute care hospital. FTC’s motion for a preliminary injunction granted after a seven-day trial in the District of New Jersey. FTC v. Hackensack Meridian Health, Inc., et al. (D.N.J.).
• Trial counsel for a Philadelphia-based hospital system in proceedings brought by the FTC and the Pennsylvania attorney general to block a proposed hospital merger worth $599 million. After a six-day trial in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 2020, 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.).
• Co-counsel for a pharmaceutical company in an 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., et al. (E.D. Pa.). The Third Circuit reversed the judgment for the FTC, and the remedy of disgorgement was vacated.
• Trial counsel for the International Association of Conference Interpreters (a/k/a AIIC), in an administrative action brought by the FTC to enjoin the association’s implementation of its monetary and nonmonetary working conditions. Following trial, the Commission affirmed in part and reversed in part the initial decision in favor of the complaint counsel, and it allowed the association to retain its nonmonetary working conditions. In re AIIC, FTC Docket No. 9270.

Antitrust Class Actions

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.

Representative Experience

Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

• Counsel for a pharmaceutical company defendant in an antitrust class action alleging that noncompete clauses in collaboration agreements for the development and manufacture of certain HIV medications are anticompetitive. Claims related to three of the four HIV medications at issue were dismissed on summary judgment in 2023, and the parties are preparing for trial on the remaining claims. In re HIV Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal.).
• Counsel for the seller of a hospital system in antitrust class actions brought by direct and indirect purchasers in, respectively, federal and state courts, alleging monopolization and restraint of trade. Defendants’ motion to dismiss in the state court action was granted in part and denied in part in 2022. Davis v. HCA Healthcare, Inc. (N.C. Super. Ct.). The federal case settled. City of Brevard v. HCA Healthcare, Inc. (W.D.N.C.).
• 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, after a favorable Daubert decision against the plaintiffs’ damages expert, the district court granted preliminary approval to a class action settlement. In re Blood Reagents Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.).
• Co-counsel to a pharmaceutical company and liaison counsel for defendants in an antitrust class action involving claims of anticompetitive patent settlements brought by direct and indirect purchasers of cholesterol medication. The district court denied class certification to the indirect purchaser plaintiffs. In re Niaspan Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.).
• Counsel to a pharmaceutical company and co-counsel to a pharmacy benefits manager in an antitrust class action, alleging unlawful monopsony conduct in drug reimbursement rates. The district court denied the motion for class certification. In re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.).
• Co-counsel for a leading paper manufacturer in a price-fixing class action involving Oriented Strand Board. Settled. In re OSB Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.).
• Counsel for a leading paper manufacturer in a price-fixing class action and in related opt-out litigation. Settled. In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.).

Other Antitrust Litigation

“Single plaintiff” antitrust cases, with the prospect of treble damages and awards of attorneys’ fees, also entail significant potential exposure, and Paul has experience on both the plaintiff’s side and the defense side of these types of cases. 

Representative Experience

Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

• Co-counsel for a wireless phone manufacturer plaintiff in an antitrust monopolization claim, alleging anticompetitive conduct by a 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 a pharmaceutical company in California Superior Court, involving nationwide price-fixing allegations against numerous brand name drug manufacturers. Summary judgment granted to the defendants on all counts, and the decision was upheld on appeal. Clayworth v. Pfizer, et al. (Cal. Sup. Ct.).
• Counsel to a chemical company in litigation alleging an agreement to suppress generic competition in cough and cold medication. Summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all antitrust claims. Hi-Tech Pharmacal v. Jame Fine Chemical and Carter Wallace (D.N.J.).
• Counsel to a distributor of dental products in an 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 the Third Circuit.
• Counsel for a trade association in an 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 a hospital system and affiliated ambulance service in a 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 an athletic association in a Sherman Act case brought by owners of for-profit basketball camps. Summary judgment granted in favor of the defendant. Pocono Invitational Sports Camp, Inc., et al. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (E.D. Pa.).

Appeals

Paul has argued in several precedent-setting appeals, including in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Representative Experience

Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

• 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).
• 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).

Counseling on Competition-Related Issues

Paul has counseled clients in a variety of business sectors, including pharmaceuticals, health care, computer, software, paper, telecommunications, food and beverage, energy, transportation, and insurance, and on a wide range of competition-related issues, such as:

• Price restraints and pricing algorithms
• Price discrimination and other Robinson-Patman Act issues
• Resale price maintenance and minimum advertised price (MAP) policies
• Tying and bundling
• Exclusive licensing and other distribution arrangements
• Mergers and acquisitions
• Patent settlements
• IP licensing
• Standard setting

He has also written on many of these competition-related issues, including those involving pricing algorithms and those at the intersection of antitrust and intellectual property law. See, for example:

• “ChatGPT Can’t Predict the Future of Antitrust and AI (Yet),” Law360® (July 19, 2023)
• “Private Antitrust Litigation in the United States: Overview,” chapter in Practical Law Guide on Private Antitrust Litigation, Thomson Reuters (2019)
• “IP, Antitrust, and the Limits of First Amendment Immunity: Shouting ‘Injunction’ in a Crowded Courthouse,” Antitrust (Summer 2013)