Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffmotionsummary judgmenttrustpatentcorporationantitrust

plaintiffdefendantmotionsummary judgmentpatentcorporation

Related Cases

U.S. v. Glaxo Group Ltd., Not Reported in F.Supp., 1969 WL 210, 163 U.S.P.Q. 668, 1970 Trade Cases P 73,000

Facts

The case involves Glaxo Group Limited, which sells griseofulvin, an antifungal antibiotic, in both unpatented and patented forms to Johnson & Johnson, Inc. and Schering Corporation. In 1959, Glaxo entered into agreements with these companies that prohibited them from reselling the bulk form of griseofulvin. These agreements were in effect until the filing of the complaint. The plaintiff contends that these agreements violate the Sherman Act.

Defendant Glaxo sells substantial quantities of bulk form griseofulvin, an oral antifungal antibiotic, in an unpatented form (regular particle size) to each of two United States companies, Johnson & Johnson, Inc. and Schering Corporation.

Issue

Whether the agreements between Glaxo and the two companies constitute a per se violation of the Sherman Act.

The agreements of Glaxo with Johnson & Johnson, Inc. and Schering Corporation that the latter would not resell bulk form griseofulvin, whether patented or unpatented, that Glaxo sold to them are in per se violation of the Sherman Act.

Rule

The Sherman Act prohibits agreements that restrain trade or commerce. Specifically, agreements that impose restrictions on resale can be deemed illegal if they are found to be in violation of antitrust laws, particularly when they are deemed to have a per se effect on competition.

The Sherman Act prohibits agreements that restrain trade or commerce.

Analysis

In this case, the court found that the agreements between Glaxo and the companies not to resell bulk form griseofulvin constituted a direct restraint on trade. The court applied the per se rule, which does not require a detailed analysis of the market effects of the agreements, as they are inherently anti-competitive. The agreements were deemed to violate the Sherman Act because they restricted the ability of the companies to sell the product freely in the market.

Conclusion

The court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, concluding that Glaxo's agreements were in violation of the Sherman Act.

Plaintiff's motion for a partial summary judgment to that effect is granted.

Who won?

The plaintiff prevailed in this case as the court granted their motion for partial summary judgment. The court determined that Glaxo's agreements with Johnson & Johnson and Schering Corporation were in violation of the Sherman Act, thereby affirming the plaintiff's position that such agreements are anti-competitive and illegal under antitrust laws.

The court hereby makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., 547 U.S. 28, 126 S.Ct. 1281, 164 L.Ed.2d 26, 74 USLW 4154, 2006-1 Trade Cases P 75,144, 77 U.S.P.Q.2d 1801, 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1717, 2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2426, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 116

Crucible, Inc. v. Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags AB, 701 F.Supp. 1157, 1989-1 Trade Cases P 68,416, 10 U.S.P.Q.2d 1190

Kalur v. Resor, 335 F.Supp. 1, 3 ERC 1458, 1 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,637

Minkin v. Gibbons, P.C., 680 F.3d 1341, 102 U.S.P.Q.2d 1573

Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., 484 U.S. 49, 108 S.Ct. 376, 98 L.Ed.2d 306, 26 ERC 1857, 56 USLW 4017, 9 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1029, 18 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,142