<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl" type="text/xsl" media="screen"?><?xml-stylesheet href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css" type="text/css" media="screen"?><rss xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0"> 

<channel>

<title>LexisNexis® Antitrust Legal News</title>

<link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/mealeys/news.aspx</link>

<description>Headline Antitrust Legal News from LexisNexis®</description>

<language>en-us</language>

 

<copyright>Copyright 2008</copyright>

<atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/AntitrustLegalNews" type="application/rss+xml" /><item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/377183744/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>FTC's Objections To Whole Foods/Wild Oats Merger Revived By D.C. Circuit</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. - The District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 29 in a divided opinion reversed a trial court's decision denying the Federal Trade Commission's request for a preliminary injunction blocking a completed merger between Whole Foods Market Inc. and Wild Oats Markets Inc. (Federal Trade Commission v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., et al., No. 07-5276, D.C. Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 16562). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-5 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 1 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-5 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 1%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/377183755/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>NFL Teams Constitute Single Entity When Licensing Intellectual Property</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[CHICAGO - The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed Aug. 18 that a jointly owned affiliate of the National Football League, the NFL and its member teams did not act in restraint of trade by granting an exclusive license to Reebok International Ltd. to use the NFL's and teams' trademarks on apparel because they acted as a single entity rather than as joint ventures (American Needle Inc. v. National Football League, et al., No. 07-4006, 7th Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 17553; See July 2007, Page 9). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-5 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 2 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-5 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 2%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/377183756/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Statutory Labor Exemption Does Not Apply To Job- Targeting Program</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[BOSTON - A union may be exempt from antitrust liability for establishing and administering a program that offers subsidies to steel erection contractors that use union labor, the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Aug. 1 in reversing summary judgment against nonunion steel erectors on their claims that the union conspired with signatories to the union's collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and remanding (American Steel Erectors, Inc., et al. v. Local Union No. 7, International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental &amp; Reinforcing Iron Workers, No. 07-1832, 1st Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 16321). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-5 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 3 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-5 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 3%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/377183757/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Pass-On Defense Is Available To Price-Fixing Defendants In California</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[SAN FRANCISCO - The First District California Court of Appeal affirmed July 25 in a case of first impression that pharmaceutical companies accused of price fixing in violation of California's Cartwright Act may assert as an affirmative defense that retail pharmacies passed on all of the claimed overcharges to their customers (James Clayworth, et al. v. Pfizer, Inc., et al., No. A116798, Calif. App., 1st Dist., Div. 2; 2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 1151). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-5 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 4 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-5 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 4%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/377183758/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Injury-In-Fact Not Adequately Alleged In Tying Arrangement Claim</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[NEWARK, N.J. - A federal judge in New Jersey ruled Aug. 13 in an unpublished opinion that a third-party payer was not entitled to injunctive or declaratory relief because it failed to allege that it suffered an antitrust injury as the result of a drug manufacturer's tying arrangement involving two cancer drugs (Sheet Metal Workers National Health Fund v. Amgen Inc., et al., No. 07-5295, D. N.J.; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62181; See December 2007, Page 20). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-5 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 5 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-5 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 5%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/377183759/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Class Action Complaint Alleges Unlawful Tying By Cable Company</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[KANSAS CITY, Kan. - A premium cable customer is accusing Time Warner Cable Inc. of unlawfully tying and bundling its premium channel cable service to the rental of a cable box in violation of federal and Kansas antitrust laws in a class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on Aug. 12 (Matthew Meeds v. Time Warner, Inc., et al., No. 08-CV-2372, D. Kan.). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-5 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 6 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-5 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 6%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/377183760/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>10th Circuit Settles MSA Amendment Antitrust Questions</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[DENVER - A key amendment to the Master Settlement Agreement that requires non-participating tobacco companies to pay money into escrow does not violate antitrust law or the U.S. Constitution, a 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held July 23 (KT&amp;G Corp., et al. v. Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma, Nos. 05-5175 &amp; -5178, 10th Cir.; Xcaliber International LLC v. Stephen Six, Attorney General, in his official capacity as Attorney General, State of Kansas, No. 06-3061, 10th Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 16190). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-5 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 7 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-5 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 7%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/377183761/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>DRAM Manufacturers Are Denied New Trial Denied In Rambus Monopolization Case</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[SAN JOSE, Calif. - A federal judge in California on July 24 denied dynamic random access memory (DRAM) manufacturers' motion for a new trial against Rambus Inc., a computer memory technology developer, on claims that Rambus engaged in anti-competitive conduct by failing to disclose patents to a standard-setting organization (SSO) (Hynix Semiconductor Inc., et al. v. Rambus Inc.; Rambus Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc., et al.; Rambus Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc., et al., Nos. 00-20905, 05-00334, 06-00244, N.D. Calif.; 2008; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60838). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-5 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 8 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-5 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 8%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/377183762/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Claim That Branded Drug Manufacturer Misused Patent Does Not Survive</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. - The District of Columbia U.S. Circuit of Appeals on July 25 affirmed summary judgment for a branded hypertension drug manufacturer on wholesale purchasers' claims that the drug manufacturer misused a patent and engaged in sham litigation to keep a generic equivalent off the market (Meijer, Inc., et al. v. Biovail Corporation, Nos. 05-7066, 05-7069, 05-7084, 06-7118, D.C. Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 15880). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-5 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 9 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-5 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 9%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/377183763/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Judge Allows Antitrust Lawsuits Against Phone Companies To Proceed</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[KANSAS CITY, Kan. - A federal judge on July 17 declined to reconsider a June 30 order denying summary judgment to a long-distance phone carrier that is accused of colluding to fix prices (In Re: Universal Service Fund Telephone Billing Practices Litigation, No. 02-MD-1468, D. Kan.; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55010). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-5 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 10 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-5 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 10%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/377183764/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Proximate Causation Of Foreign Injury Not Sufficiently Alleged; No Jurisdiction</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[SAN FRANCISCO - The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Aug. 14 affirmed that a British computer manufacturer that purchased dynamic random access memory (DRAM) outside of the United States did not meet the jurisdictional requirements of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvement Act of 1982 (FTAIA), holding that where a plaintiff alleges that its foreign injury is linked to the domestic effect of the defendants' anti-competitive conduct, the FTAIA's domestic injury exception requires proximate causation, not just "but for" causation (In re: Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litigation [Centerprise International, Ltd. v. Micron Technology, Inc., et al., No. 06-15635, 9th Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 17269). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-5 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 11 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-5 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 11%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/377183765/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Generic Drug Company Failed To Plead Antitrust Injury; Motion To Amend Denied</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. - A trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a generic drug company's request to amend its counterclaims against a branded drug company to add a monopolization claim, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled July 16 in an unpublished opinion (Merck &amp; Co., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., No. 2007-1362, Fed. Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 15014). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-5 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 12 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-5 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 12%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/377183766/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Appeals Court: Jury's Relevant Market Definition Is Supported By Evidence</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[SAN FRANCISCO - The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Aug. 20 ruled that evidence that the relevant market was the sale of inserts to packaged goods companies supported a jury's finding (Theme Promotions Inc. v. News America Marketing FSI; Theme Promotions Inc. v. News America Marketing FSI, Nos. 06-16230, 06-16341, U.S. App., 9th Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 17723). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-5 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 13 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-5 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 13%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/377183767/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Intervenor-Defendant In Case Challenging Regulation Of Wine Sales May Be Liable For Fees</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[SAN FRANCISCO - The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Aug. 18 that a nonprevailing intervenor in an antitrust case may be jointly and severally liable for an award of fees and costs, even if the intervenor was not liable for unlawful conduct, where the intervenor had a financial interest in the outcome of the litigation and its actions increased the plaintiff's cost of seeking relief (Costco Wholesale Corporation v. Roger Hoen, et al., No. 06-36040, 9th Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 17429; See September 2006, Page 25). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-5 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 14 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-5 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 14%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/377183768/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>DOJ May Be Required To Disclose Redacted Versions Of Amnesty Agreements</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. - The District of Columbia U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on July 25 vacated a lower court ruling that all amnesty agreements entered into by the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice since 1993 were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (Stolt-Nielsen Transportation Group Ltd. v. United States of America, Nos. 07-5191, 07-5192, D.C. Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 15877; See April 2007, Page 20). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-5 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 15 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-5 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 15%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/377183769/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Nurses Accusing Hospitals Of Plot To Depress Wages Granted Class Certification</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[ALBANY, NY - A putative class of nurses who are accusing several New York hospitals of colluding to depress wages was granted class certification by a federal judge on July 28 (Wendy Fleischman, et al. v. Albany Medical Center, et al., No. 06-cv-0765, N.D. N.Y.; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57188; See June 2006, Page 6). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-5 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 16 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-5 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 16%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/377183777/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Notice Of Voluntary Dismissal By Bath Fixture Antitrust Class Is Timely</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[PHILADELPHIA - The filing of a notice of voluntary dismissal filed by antitrust plaintiffs following the trial court's dismissal without prejudice of their price-fixing claims is not untimely, the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled July 28 (In re: Bath and Kitchen Fixtures Antitrust Litigation [Samuel Gordon Architects, et al.], No. 07-1520, 3rd Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 15957; See August 2006, Page 19). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-5 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 17 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-5 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 17%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/377183779/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>News Groups Seek To Unseal Documents In Antitrust Action Against Intel</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WILMINGTON, Del. - Several news organizations and a trade group on Aug. 21 asked a federal judge to unseal court records in the lawsuits brought by Advanced Micro Devices Inc. and consumers against Intel Corp., which allege that Intel willfully maintained a monopoly in the x86 microprocessor market by engaging in anti-competitive conduct (In re Intel Corporation Microprocessor Antitrust Litigation [Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al. v. Intel Corporation, et al.; Paul, et al. v. Intel Corporation], MDL No. 05-1717, Nos. 05-441, 05-485, D. Del.; See May 2008, Page 23). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-5 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 18 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-5 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 18%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/377183780/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>FTC Officials Leave Commission</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[Linklaters Jeffrey Schmidt, Director of the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Competition, is leaving the FTC and joining Linklaters in its New York office as a competition/antitrust partner. Schmidt has been director of the Bureau of Competition since 2005. Before joining the FTC, Schmidt was a partner for 15 years at Pillsbury Madison &amp; Sutro (now Pillsbury Withrop Shaw Pittman). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-5 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 19 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-5 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 19%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/344710924/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Dealer Fails To Allege Illegal Tying Arrangement, Price Fixing</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[CHICAGO - The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on June 23 affirmed the dismissal of claims by Marathon- and Speedway-branded dealers that the petroleum companies engaged in illegal tying arrangements by requiring the dealers to process all credit and debit card transactions through the defendant companies, concluding that distributorship rights are not a tying product separate from credit and debit card processing services (John D. Sheridan, et al. v. Marathon Petroleum Company LLC, et al., No. 07-3543, 7th Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 13275; See October 2007, Page 10). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-4 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 1 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-4 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 1%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/344710925/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Franchisees' Tying Claim Related To Credit Card Processing Is Dismissed</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[SAN FRANCISCO - The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 11 dismissed Shell and Texaco gasoline stations' claims that Equilon Enterprises illegally ties its franchises and credit card processing services (Rick-Mik Enterprises Inc., et al. v. Equilon Enterprises, LLC, No. 06-55937, 9th Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 14761). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-4 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 2 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-4 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 2%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/344710926/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>New Car Lessees Lack Standing As Indirect Purchasers</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[BOSTON - The First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on June 30 affirmed that lessees of new cars are indirect purchasers lacking standing to sue Canadian and U.S. car manufacturers under Section 4 of the Clayton Act for conspiring to restrict the flow of cheaper Canadian cars in the U.S. market between 2001 and 2003 when the U.S. dollar enjoyed a favorable exchange rate (In re: New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation (Barry Cohen, et al. v. General Motors Corporation, et al., No. 07-1990, 1st Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 13767). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-4 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 3 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-4 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 3%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/344710927/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Conspiracy, Group Boycott Allegations Against Sports Organization Dismissed</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[MINNEAPOLIS - A manufacturer of a golf device failed to adequately allege that parallel refusals to sell its device were the result of a preceding agreement between the U.S. Golf Association (USGA) and golf retailers in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Minnesota antitrust law, a federal judge in Minnesota ruled July 2 in granting USGA's motion to dismiss (Windage v. United States Golf Association, et al., No. 07-4897, D. Minn.; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51065). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-4 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 4 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-4 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 4%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/344710928/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Attorney General's Conspiracy Complaint Against Insurers Survives Motion To Dismiss</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[CLEVELAND - The Ohio attorney general sufficiently pleaded that several insurance companies conspired to allocate customers, divide markets and restrain competition in violation of Ohio's Valentine Act, a state judge in Ohio ruled July 2 in denying the insurance companies' motions to dismiss (State of Ohio, ex rel. Marc E. Dann v. American International Group, Inc., et al., No. 633857, Ohio Comm. Pls. Cuyahoga Co.; See September 2007, Page 14). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-4 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 5 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-4 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 5%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/344710929/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Retailers', Customers' Retail Price Maintenance Agreement Claims Survive</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[PHILADELPHIA - Small retailers and consumers sufficiently pleaded plus-factor allegations under Twombly, a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled July 2 in refusing to reconsider her denial of a motion to dismiss minimum retail price maintenance (RPM) claims against a larger retailer and several manufacturers (Babyage.com, Inc., et al. v. Toys "R" Us, Inc., et al., Nos. 05-6792, 06-242, E.D. Pa.; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52011). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-4 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 6 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-4 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 6%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/344710930/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Union Is Exempt From Antitrust Laws For Activities Seeking Collective Bargaining</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[CAMDEN, N.J. - A union is exempt from the antitrust laws for its alleged picketing and threatening of businesses with which a nonunion business worked in an effort to coerce the nonunion business to sign a collective bargaining agreement because the nonunion business failed to allege that the union entered into an agreement with a nonlabor party, a federal judge in New Jersey ruled June 30 in an unpublished opinion (Roman Restoration, Inc. v. Operative Plasterers' and Cement Masons' International Association of the United States and Canada Local #8, et al., No. 07-2991, D. N.J.; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49940). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-4 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 7 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-4 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 7%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/344710931/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Wholesalers Required To Pay Tobacco Company From Injunction Bond</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[GREENEVILLE, Tenn. - Philip Morris USA Inc. established liability on a preliminary injunction bond to the extent that it suffered damages from having been wrongfully enjoined in a price discrimination lawsuit brought by wholesalers and direct distributors of cigarettes, a federal judge in Tennessee ruled June 25 (Smith Wholesale Co., Inc., et al. v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., No. 03-221, E.D. Tenn.; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48987). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-4 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 8 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-4 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 8%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/344710932/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>MasterCard Agrees To Pay American Express $1.8 Billion</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[NEW YORK - On June 25, American Express and MasterCard announced that they had reached a $1.8 billion settlement of American Express' lawsuit alleging that Visa, MasterCard and their member banks conspired to keep American Express out of the bank-issued card business in the United States (American Express Travel Related Services Company v. VISA U.S.A., et al., No. 04-8967, S.D. N.Y.). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-4 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 9 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-4 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 9%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/344710933/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>$9M Settlement Between Warner Chilcott, Direct Purchaser Class Finally Approved</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. - A federal district court on July 10 granted final approval to a $9 million antitrust settlement between direct purchasers and Warner Chilcott Holdings Co. III Ltd. related to a reverse settlement agreement between Warner Chilcott and Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc. involving Ovcon 35, one of Warner Chilcott's combined hormonal contraceptives (Meijer, Inc., et al. v. Warner Chilcott Holdings Company III, Ltd., et al., No. 05-2195, D. D.C.; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52410; See November 2007, Page 22). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-4 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 10 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-4 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 10%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/344710934/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Approval Of Settlement Between Flat Glass Manufacturer, Indirect Purchasers Affirmed</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[SAN FRANCISCO - A California trial court properly approved a $2.5 million settlement between indirect purchasers and a manufacturer of flat glass products on the indirect purchasers' claims that manufacturers conspired to fix prices, a California appellate court ruled June 30 in an unpublished opinion (Flat Glass Cases, No. A118478, Cal. App., 1st Dist., Div. 5; 2008 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5321). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-4 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 11 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-4 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 11%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/344710935/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Johnson &amp; Johnson, Amgen Reach $200M Settlement In Tying Lawsuit</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[NEWARK, N.J. - Ortho Biotech Products, a subsidiary of Johnson &amp; Johnson, and Amgen Inc. announced July 11 that Amgen will pay Ortho Biotech $200 million to settle Ortho Biotech's claims that Amgen engaged in illegal tying arrangements and pricing schemes in the oncology clinic market (Ortho Biotech Products, L.P. v. Amgen Inc., et al., No. 05-4850, D. N.J.). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-4 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 12 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-4 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 12%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/344710936/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>State Antitrust Lawsuit Was Properly Removed Under CAFA, 5th Circuit Says</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[NEW ORLEANS - The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 18 affirmed 2-1 that an antitrust lawsuit alleging violations of Louisiana law against various insurance companies and their vendors was properly removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) (State of Louisiana v. Allstate Insurance Co., et al., No. 08-30465, 5th Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 15275; See June 2008, Page 22). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-4 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 13 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-4 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 13%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/344710937/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Missouri Appeals Court Orders Antitrust Dispute To Arbitration</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[KANSAS CITY, Mo. - In reversing a lower court, a Missouri appeals court on July 15 said that contracts between physicians and insurance companies outlining reimbursement rates required arbitration of the physicians' antitrust allegations (Kansas City Urology, P.A., et al. v. United HealthCare Services, et al., Nos. Wd 67814, WD 67815, Mo. App.; 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 954). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-4 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 14 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-4 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 14%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/344710938/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>5th Circuit Grants Rehearing, Affirms FTC's Divestiture Order</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[NEW ORLEANS - Upon rehearing, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 2 denied review of a Federal Trade Commission divestiture ruling that concluded that Chicago Bridge &amp; Iron Co.'s (CB&amp;I) purchase of Pitt-Des Moines Inc.'s (PDM) assets related to its field-erected cryogenic storage tank business would likely result in a substantial lessening of competition in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (Chicago Bridge &amp; Iron Company v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 05-60192, 5th Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 14280; See February 2008, Page 6). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-4 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 15 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-4 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 15%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/320671833/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>FTC Seeks Rehearing Of Ruling In Rambus Exclusionary Conduct Case</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Federal Trade Commission on June 6 sought rehearing en banc of the District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that the FTC failed to sustain its allegation that Rambus Inc., a computer memory technology developer, engaged in exclusionary conduct by failing to disclose patents to a standard-setting organization (SSO) (Rambus Incorporated v. Federal Trade Commission, Nos. 07-1086, 07-1124, D.C. Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 8662; See May 2008, Page 5). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-3 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 1 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-3 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 1%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/320671835/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Vertical Agreement Challenge Survives Summary Judgment Under Rule Of Reason Analysis</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[PHILADELPHIA - The Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on June 17 held that a trucking dealership presented evidence that Mack Trucks Inc. entered illegal vertical agreements with its dealers to limit competition that was sufficient to permit the dealership's Sherman Act Section 1 claim to go to a jury (Toledo Mack Sales &amp; Service, Inc. v. Mack Trucks, Inc., No. 07-1811, 3rd Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 12741; See December 2006, Page 14). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-3 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 2 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-3 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 2%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/320671836/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Farmers' Price-Fixing Claims Against Milk Sellers Satisfy Twombly</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[GREENEVILLE, Tenn. - Dairy farmers' antitrust claims against marketers and bottlers of milk stated sufficient facts to satisfy the pleadings requirements of Twombly, a federal judge in Tennessee ruled May 20 in denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment (In re: Southeastern Milk Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1899, No. 08-1000, E.D. Tenn.; See related story in this issue.). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-3 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 3 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-3 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 3%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/320671837/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Homeowners' Horizontal Price-Fixing Claims Against Insurer Dismissed</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[NEW ORLEANS - Homeowners' allegations regarding an insurer's use of a computer program to calculate the replacement value of damaged property do not state a claim for horizontal price fixing, a federal judge in Louisiana ruled June 13 (Conrad Mornay, et al. v. Travelers Insurance, et al., No. 07-5274, E.D. La.; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46305). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-3 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 4 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-3 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 4%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/320671838/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Supreme Court Will Consider Price-Squeeze Claim</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on June 23 agreed to review a divided Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that Verizon Communications, Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP does not preclude Internet service providers' (ISPs) claims that telecommunications service providers created a price squeeze by charging ISPs a high wholesale price in relation to the price at which the defendants were providing retail services (Pacific Bell Telephone Company, et al. v. linkLine Communications, et al., No. 07-512, U.S. Sup.; See May 2008, Page 4). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-3 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 5 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-3 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 5%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/320671839/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Rental Car Company's Walker Process Claims Survive Motion To Dismiss</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[BOSTON - Hertz Corp.'s allegations that Enterprise Rent-a-Car Co. engaged in monopolization by making false statements to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to obtain a patent for a software program sufficiently plead a Walker Process claim, even though Enterprise did not attempt to enforce the patent, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled June 2 (The Hertz Corporation, et al. v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, et al., No. 07-11793, D. Mass.; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43158). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-3 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 6 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-3 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 6%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/320671840/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Online Marketing Agreement Between Amazon, Borders Survives Challenge</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[SAN FRANCISCO - The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on May 27 affirmed that a book purchaser lacks standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution to challenge a marketing agreement between Amazon.com Inc. and Borders Group Inc. as per se market allocation or per se price fixing in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act (Gary Gerlinger v. Amazon.com Inc., et al., No. 05-17328, 9th Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 11237). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-3 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 7 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-3 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 7%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/320671841/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Direct Purchasers' Challenge To Merger Tolled During FTC Proceedings</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[CHICAGO - Because both the Federal Trade Commission's administrative complaint and direct purchasers' complaint alleged that a certain hospital corporation's acquisition of another hospital violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act, the statute of limitations applicable to the direct purchasers' complaint was tolled during the commission's administrative proceedings, even though the relevant product markets alleged by the two complaints were not identical, a federal judge ruled May 29 in denying the hospital's motion to dismiss (In re Evanston Northwestern Healthcare, No. 07-4446, 07-4523, 07-5275, 08-2343, 08-2658, N.D. Ill.; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42437). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-3 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 8 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-3 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 8%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/320671842/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>6th Circuit: NCAA's Enforcement Of Recruiting Rules Is Noncommercial</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[CINCINNATI - The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on June 9 affirmed that group boycott claims by a coach who resigned due to allegations that he violated National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) recruiting rules could not be maintained because enforcement of the rules was a noncommercial activity and because the coach failed to allege an anti-competitive effect on the coaching market (Claude L. Bassett v. The National Collegiate Athletic Association, et al., No. 06-5795, 6th Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 12248). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-3 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 9 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-3 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 9%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/320671843/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Probability Of Monopoly Power In Diagnostic Imaging Market Not Shown</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[SAN FRANCISCO - The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on May 20 ruled that diagnostic imaging services, which asserted attempted monopolization claims against a network of hospitals and physicians, failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether there were barriers to entry and expansion in the diagnostic imaging market (East Portland Imaging Center, et al. v. Providence Health System-Oregon, et al., Nos. 06-35394, 06-35449, 9th Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 10984; See April 2006, Page 19). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-3 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 10 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-3 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 10%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/320671844/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Filed Rate Doctrine Doesn't Bar Conspiracy Claims Against Milk Sellers</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[GREENEVILLE, Tenn. - Dairy farmers' antitrust claims against marketers and bottlers of milk are not barred by the filed rate doctrine because the defendants failed to show that the prices at issue are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture secretary, a federal judge in Tennessee ruled June 6 (In re: Southeastern Milk Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1899, No. 08-1000, E.D. Tenn.; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44541; See related story in this issue.). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-3 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 11 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-3 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 11%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/320671845/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Antitrust Class Action Against Electronic Income Tax Preparers Is Dismissed</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[PHILADELPHIA - Although taxpayers had standing to assert antitrust claims against providers of electronic tax filing services that allegedly restricted the availability of free e-filing services, the defendants were entitled to implied antitrust immunity, a federal judge ruled May 28 (Stacie Byers, et al. v. Intuit, Inc., et al., No. 07-4753, E.D. Pa.; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41957). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-3 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 12 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-3 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 12%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/320671846/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Federal Judge Orders Confidential Settlement Agreement Unsealed</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[MONROE, La. - In response to antitrust litigants' request for enforcement of a confidential settlement agreement, a federal judge in Louisiana on May 29 ordered that the agreement be unsealed, citing the public's right to access to the judicial record (Floral Accounting System, Inc., et al. v. Florists' Transworld Delivery, Inc., No. 06-1098, W.D. La.; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42084). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-3 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 13 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-3 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 13%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/320671850/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>5th Circuit To Rule If Antitrust Suit To Proceed In State Or Federal Court</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[NEW ORLEANS - The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on June 5 heard oral arguments on whether an antitrust lawsuit filed under state law by the State of Louisiana against various insurance companies and their vendors should proceed in state or federal court (State of Louisiana v. Allstate Insurance Co., et al., No. 08-30465, 5th Cir.). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-3 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 14 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-3 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 14%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustLegalNews/~3/320671851/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Dog Breeder Alleges Price Fixing, Collective Boycott Against Breed Club</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[RENO, Nev. - A breeder of American Mastiffs sued the American Mastiff Breeders Council (AMBC) and its members on June 17, alleging that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by agreeing to a price ceiling for the sale of puppies (Craig Williamson v. American Mastiff Breeders Council, et al., No. 08-336, D. Nev.). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=3-3 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 15 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%203-3 LexisNexis Antitrust Rep. 15%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
               
</channel>

</rss>
