Robins, Kaplan, Miller, & Ciresi, L.L.P.

Our attorneys represent class, individual, and opt-out plaintiffs and defendants, in state and federal courts throughout the country. True trial lawyers, we use the knowledge acquired in our experiences on both sides of the courtroom to fuel the litigation strategies that we deploy for clients with competition-based claims. Based on the depth of our experience, we bring a sophisticated level of insight to all of our antitrust representations, including:

Private Antitrust Litigation

We have been involved in high-profile private antitrust cases for nearly a half century and have obtained some of the largest antitrust recoveries on record, including the largest known antitrust class action settlement in the history of the Sherman Act. 

Antitrust and Intellectual Property

We have brought and defended cutting-edge cases at the complex intersection of antitrust and intellectual property law. We counsel clients on the competitive concerns raised in the ownership and licensing of intellectual property, and on the myriad ways in which anticompetitive issues can be implicated in patent infringement and other intellectual property litigation.

Government Investigations

We represent clients in government investigations by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission and state enforcement agencies. We assist clients who are targets of government investigations, witnesses who have been subpoenaed to provide information and clients who have been injured by anticompetitive behavior.

Mergers, Acquisitions and Joint Ventures

Our attorneys handle Hart-Scott-Rodino pre-merger filings with the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice. We regularly provide risk assessments and analyses of the antitrust implications of proposed mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures and other business alliances. We also represent parties concerned about the anticompetitive effects of proposed mergers, and assist them in effectively presenting their view to the government enforcement agencies.

Antitrust Counseling

Our attorneys provide counseling on varied issues including sales and marketing practices, distribution agreements, licensing, trade association activities, and antitrust compliance training to in-house counsel and business executives.

We represent corporations, manufacturers, and individual business owners and investors and shareholders, in numerous industries including:

• Agricultural cooperatives
• Cable television
• Financial services
• Food and beverage
• Health care
• High technology
• Insurance
• Manufacturing
• Oil
• Retail
• Software

Plaintiffs

In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Litigation, 05-MD-1720 (JG)(JO): Reached a $7.25 billion proposed antitrust settlement on behalf of a class of approximately seven million U.S. merchants who accept Visa and MasterCard credit cards and debit cards for the purchase of goods and services. The defendants included Visa and MasterCard, and major card-issuing banks such as JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo, and Capital One. The settlement, which resolves the lawsuit, is believed to be the largest settlement of a private antitrust case in the 120-year history of the Sherman Act and also includes important reforms of the payment card industry.

Minnesota Tobacco Litigation: In May 1998, we reached an historic settlement in the State of Minnesota and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota’s lawsuit against the major cigarette manufacturers after 15 weeks of trial.  The case was settled for $6.13 billion on behalf of the State of Minnesota and $469 million on behalf of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota.  The discovery obtained by our firm was used by other states, private litigants and foreign countries.

In re: Lorazepam and Clorazepate Antitrust Litigation:  Representation of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, and Federated Mutual Insurance Company in litigation before the federal District Court in the District of Columbia involving claims of state antitrust law violations regarding competitors' access to raw materials for Lorazepam and Clorazepate. The jury's verdict found that Mylan Laboratories Inc. /Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cambrex Corporation, and Gyma Laboratories violated state antitrust laws and had restrained trade and acted willfully in excluding generic competitors' access. In post-trial motions, the District Court awarded Plaintiffs treble damages, for a total award to all plaintiffs of $76.8 million.  The case has been remanded to the district court for further proceedings following the D.C. Circuit opinion of January 18, 2011.

Vitamins Antitrust Litigation: Represented large agribusiness clients who were opt-out plaintiffs in In re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1285 (D.D.C.). The Vitamins litigation arose out of a decade-long price-fixing cartel of the major international vitamin manufacturers, and involved vigorously contested disputes regarding jurisdiction, foreign discovery, conspiracy, damages and expert issues. Clients included Land O' Lakes, Inc., Hormel Foods Corporation, CHS Co-Operatives, Gold'n Plump Poultry, and other large vitamin purchasers. The cases settled after discovery was complete, but before trial, for in excess of $250,000,000.

Methionine Antitrust Litigation: In In re Methionine Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1311, (N.D. Cal.), represented many of the same large agribusiness clients as in In re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation. Involved a challenge to international price-fixing cartel. Settled for $35,000,000.

Defense

Digital Sun v. The Toro Company: Obtained summary dismissal of complaint asserted against The Toro Company, alleging violations of the federal antitrust laws (Sherman and Clayton Acts), as well as California unfair business practices and common law fraud.  The complaint involved smart sprinkler technology, and arose out of Toro's consideration of a potential business relationship with the named plaintiff regarding that technology, including the licensing of certain intellectual property related to that technology.  The issues presented in the motion to dismiss included the plausibility of the allegations under the standard set forth in the Supreme Court's decision in Twombly, as well as the intersection between the antitrust and patent laws.  The dismissal briefing focused on key points in the related documentation and dealings which confirmed the business reality existing between the parties, thereby overcoming an otherwise complex set of allegations presented in the complaint.  The matter settled shortly after the summary dismissal.

Omnicare, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc.: Represented defendants UnitedHealth Group, Inc. and PacifiCare, Inc. in an antitrust lawsuit involving alleged price-fixing and fraud related to prescription drug reimbursement under the federal Medicare Part D program.  Plaintiff Omnicare sought damages exceeding $1 billion and permanent injunctive relief.  After summary judgment motion was argued in August 2008, the U.S. District Court granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims in January 2009.  Published decision:  Omnicare, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., 594 F. Supp. 2d 945 (N.D. Ill. 2009).  Summary judgment was subsequently affirmed. Omnicare, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., 629 F.3d 697 (7th Cir. 2011).

Augustine Medical, Inc. v. Tyco et al.:  Obtained summary judgment dismissing an antitrust counterclaim to a patent infringement suit.

PSI Repair Services, Inc. v. Honeywell Inc.:Defended manufacturer of industrial control systems against allegations of antitrust trying with regard to replacement parts and repair service.

Aguilar v. Unocal:Appellate court dismissal of price-fixing class action against gasoline manufacturer.

Raymond v. MediaOne: Dismissal of antitrust tying and unfair competition class action against cable television provider.

Federal Trade Commission: In the matter of Union Oil Company of California.  In defense of Section 5 antitrust allegations brought against Unocal based on reformulated gasoline patents.  Initial decision granted November 25, 2003 in favor of Unocal.

Bristol Hotel v. Aetna et al.: Dismissal of RICO class action brought in Miami, Florida against workers compensation insurers.

Total TV v. Palmer Communications: Defense of predatory pricing case.

Obtained summary judgment in favor of defendant client on various antitrust and common law claims involving the snowmobile racing industry.

* Past results are reported to provide the reader with an indication of the type of litigation we practice. They do not and should not be construed to create an expectation of result in any other case, as all cases are dependent upon their own unique fact situation and applicable law.