While online commerce has in many ways made the world more accessible for smaller competitors, the dominance of a select few competitors and wide-scale adoption of a limited number of platforms have presented new challenges for small competitors on the modern world, and conversely presented many temptations to act anticompetitively for market-dominant competitors. Baker Marquart understands these challenges like few firms do, having handled disputes against online payment processors, film and television studios, social media and online search engine giants for anticompetitive conduct. Baker Marquart’s keen understanding of emerging technologies like Internet-based media and cryptocurrency, combined with its Ivy League education in traditional antitrust law.

Here are some representative engagements:

  • In re Air Passenger Computer Reservations Sys. Antitrust Litig., 724 F.Supp. 744 (C.D. Cal. 1989)
  • Sessions Tank Liners, Inc. v. Joor Mfg., Inc., 17 F.3d 295 (9th Cir. 1994)
  • In re Circuit Breakers Litig., 984 F.Supp. 1267 (C.D. Cal. 1997)
  • Image Technical Servs. Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 125 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 1997)
  • Kentmaster Mfg, Co., v. Jarvis Prods. Corp., 146 F.3d 691 (9th Cir. 1998)
  • Image Technical Serv. Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 136 F.3d 1354 (9th Cir. 1998)
  • Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal. 4th 820 (2001)
  • H.B. Filmes, LTDA v. CBS, Inc., 98 F.App’x. 599 (9th Cir. 2004)
  • Modesto Irrigation Dist. v. Pacific Gas and Elec. Co., 309 F.Supp. 2d 1156 (N.D. Cal. 2004)
  • Newcal Industries, Inc. v. Ikon Office Solution, 513 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2008)
  • Multiven, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 725 F.Supp. 2d 887 (N.D. Cal. 2010)
  • Arminak & Assocs., Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Calmar, Inc., 789 F.Supp.2d 1201 (C.D. Cal. 2011)
  • Evergreen Partnering Group, Inc. v. Pactiv Corp., 720 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2013)
  • Bay Area Surgical Mgmt. LLC v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 166 F.Supp. 3d 988 (N.D. Cal. 2015)
  • UniStrip Techs., LLC v. LifeScan, Inc., 153 F.Supp. 3d 728 (E.D. Pa. 2015)
  • Abbey House Media, Inc. v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 869 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2017)