close

For more than four decades, Fenwick & West LLP has helped some of the world’s most recognized companies become, and remain, market leaders. From emerging enterprises to large public corporations, our clients are leaders in the technology, life sciences and cleantech sectors and are fundamentally changing the world through rapid innovation.  MORE >

Fenwick & West was founded in 1972 in the heart of Silicon Valley—before “Silicon Valley” existed—by four visionary lawyers who left a top-tier New York law firm to pursue their shared belief that technology would revolutionize the business world and to pioneer the legal work for those technological innovations. In order to be most effective, they decided they needed to move to a location close to primary research and technology development. These four attorneys opened their first office in downtown Palo Alto, and Fenwick became one of the first technology law firms in the world.  MORE >

From our founding in 1972, Fenwick has been committed to promoting diversity and inclusion both within our firm and throughout the legal profession. For almost four decades, the firm has actively promoted an open and inclusive work environment and committed significant resources towards improving our diversity efforts at every level.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we are proud of our commitment to the community and to our culture of making a difference in the lives of individuals and organizations in the communities where we live and work. We recognize that providing legal services is not only an essential part of our professional responsibility, but also an excellent opportunity for our attorneys to gain valuable practical experience, learn new areas of the law and contribute to the community.  MORE >

Year after year, Fenwick & West is honored for excellence in the legal profession. Many of our attorneys are recognized as leaders in their respective fields, and our Corporate, Tax, Litigation and Intellectual Property Practice Groups consistently receive top national and international rankings, including:

  • Named Technology Group of the Year by Law360
  • Ranked #1 in the Americas for number of technology deals in 2015 by Mergermarket
  • Nearly 20 percent of Fenwick partners are ranked by Chambers
  • Consistently ranked among the top 10 law firms in the U.S. for diversity
  • Recognized as having top mentoring and pro bono programs by Euromoney

MORE >

We take sustainability very seriously at Fenwick. Like many of our clients, we are adopting policies that reduce consumption and waste, and improve efficiency. By using technologies developed by a number of our cleantech clients, we are at the forefront of implementing sustainable policies and practices that minimize environmental impact. In fact, Fenwick has earned recognition in several areas as one of the top US law firms for implementing sustainable business practices.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we have a passion for excellence and innovation that mirrors our client base. Our firm is making revolutionary changes to the practice of law through substantial investments in proprietary technology tools and processes—allowing us to deliver best-in-class legal services more effectively.   MORE >

Mountain View Office
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
650.988.8500

San Francisco Office
555 California Street
13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.875.2300

Seattle Office
1191 Second Avenue
10th Floor
Seattle, WA 98101
206.389.4510

New York Office
1211 Avenue of the Americas
32nd Floor
New York, NY 10036
212.921.2001

Shanghai Office
Unit 908, 9/F, Kerry Parkside Office
No. 1155 Fang Dian Road
Pudong New Area, Shanghai 201204
P.R. China
+86 21 8017 1200


Antitrust Alert: Leegin Returns to East Texas to Die: Epic Vertical Price Fixing Case Goes Full Circle

Earlier this month, the Eastern District of Texas dismissed all claims in an antitrust case that has made history. In 2007, the United States Supreme Court shook the antitrust world with its decision in Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 127 S.Ct. 2705 (2007). The Court overturned one of its oldest antitrust decisions, Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 31 S. Ct. 376 (1911),, which had held that agreements between a manufacturer and its retailers on the minimum price to be charged by the retailers were per se illegal under the federal antitrust laws. The Supreme Court decision generated widespread attention, so our description of it will be brief.

The case arose when Leegin, a maker of high end women's purses and other accessories sold under the Brighton trademark, terminated PSKS as a retailer because of clear and intentional violations of its resale pricing policy. At trial in Judge Ward's court in Marshall, Texas, the jury found that Leegin had gone beyond merely stating and enforcing a policy (which standing alone is legal under the Court's decision in United States v. Colgate & Co., 39 S. Ct. 465 (1919)) and had entered into agreements setting the minimum prices at which retailers could sell its products. Under the longstanding per se rule against such agreements, Leegin was denied the opportunity to show that its actions were either competitively benign or even pro-competitive. Not surprisingly, the jury found liability, and the court trebled the damages award.

After the Fifth Circuit affirmed based on Dr. Miles, Leegin asked the Supreme Court to review that precedent in light of more recent Supreme Court cases and an extensive body of more recent economic analysis showing that vertical price fixing agreements are not always or nearly always anticompetitive, as required for per se treatment. The Court granted certiorari and reversed, holding that such agreements should be judged under the rule of reason, which balances actual competitive harm against procompetitive benefits. In doing so, the Court brought the law governing vertical price agreements into conformity with the law on vertical non-price agreements. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Fifth Circuit which then remanded to the District Court where it sat for almost a year before PSKS began to prosecute it again.

PSKS eventually filed an amended complaint which attempted to assert a rule of reason case under the new rule established by the Supreme Court. In addition, however, PSKS attempted to assert new per se claims based on the allegation that Leegin's agreements were horizontal. After briefing and argument, Judge Ward held that the claims were defective as a matter of law and dismissed the case.

In light of the change in legal standards, PSKS was entitled to try to assert claims under the rule of reason. However, since the original case was premised on the per se rule, the facts did not fit easily in a rule of reason framework. PSKS alleged two economic markets in which to evaluate the competitive effect, but Judge Ward had little difficulty finding these markets to be deficient.

The first alleged market was the "retail market for Brighton's women's accessories." Judge Ward noted that numerous cases have rejected the effort to define single brand markets. While Brighton purses are obviously differentiated to some degree, there was no basis to conclude that they do not compete with other high quality purses.

The second alleged market was the "wholesale sale of brand-name women's accessories to independent retailers." Judge Ward found this market definition to be gerrymandered in every element. The attempted focus on "wholesale" sales was inappropriate because it did not focus on how the agreements impact consumers. The attempted focus on "brand name" accessories was conclusory, and the pleading failed to allege facts to show that consumers would only turn to brand name products as substitutes for the Brighton products. The attempted focus on "women's accessories" grouped products as dissimilar as shoes and picture frames despite the fact that they are obviously not substitutes for one another. Finally, in addition to being vague, the attempted focus on "independent retailers" failed because there was no reason to think that consumers would not purchase from other types of retailers if they sold the same products.

In the absence of adequately defined relevant markets, the rule of reason case failed as a matter of law because there was no market context in which to assess any competitive effects. The attempt to introduce new "horizontal" per se theories also failed as a matter of law for both procedural and substantive reasons.

PSKS had chosen to go to trial on only the per se rule against vertical minimum price fixing. Under the so-called mandate rule, the case on remand was limited to the vertical price fixing theory that was tried and appealed. In addition, however, Judge Ward held that the new claims failed anyway.

One horizontal theory was premised on the fact that Leegin operated a small number of its own retail outlets. PSKS argued that since Leegin operated at the retail level, the agreements that it made with its many retailers should be treated as horizontal agreements. Many cases have rejected this "dual distribution" theory, and Judge Ward did too.

The other horizontal theory was a "hub and spoke" theory in which Leegin was the hub and its retailers were the spokes. PSKS tried to bolster this theory with evidence of a sales meeting at which Leegin had asked the opinion of some of its retailers on a minor application of the pricing policy and later announced its decision to the same effect. Judge Ward found the allegations to be insufficient to establish this conspiracy. There was no allegation that the retailers had agreed among themselves or that Leegin's own interests were not the driving force in the announced decision. As a result, the allegations did not go beyond a vertical agreement because "PSKS is missing the requisite wheel in the classic hub and spoke arrangement."

At the first trial, Leegin was prepared to prove that it had important and legitimate business justifications for its pricing policy and also to introduce economic evidence that its actions did not and could not harm competition in the highly competitive market in which it and many other, often larger and more powerful firms operated. Those arguments tend to raise fact questions that may be hard to resolve on summary judgment. Because PSKS did not get past the important market definition / market power screen, however, those issues were not litigated on remand.

Barring yet another appeal, for which there seems to very little basis, Leegin appears to be over at last. An important antitrust principle was established because Leegin's owner, Jerry Kohl, was willing to spend the time and money necessary. As the ruling on remand shows, the Supreme Court's decision in Leegin will profoundly impact litigation in this area. However, companies should not assume that there is now a rule of per se legality. Companies with arguable market power are at some risk, and should implement their distribution policies with care. Although Leegin has changed the federal antitrust rules, many states have their own antitrust laws, some of which contain independent per se rules, and many state enforcers were big supporters of the old federal per se rule. As a result, it may be wise to continue to rely primarily on pricing policies rather than agreements. At least now, if an agreement is found, companies will have the opportunity to show that their practices do not, in fact, harm competition.

Tyler Baker is the head of the Antitrust Litigation group at Fenwick & West LLP. He represented Leegin in all phases of this litigation. Earlier in his career, he was the law clerk for Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. in Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 97 S. Ct. 2549 (1977), in which the Supreme Court held in an opinion by Justice Powell that the rule of reason applies to vertical non-price agreements. He is not entirely neutral on these issues.

For further information, please contact:

Tyler Baker, Litigation Partner
tbaker@fenwick.com, 650.335.7624


This update is intended by Fenwick & West LLP to summarize recent developments in the law. It is not intended, and should not be regarded, as legal advice. Readers who have particular questions about these issues should seek advice of counsel.

©2009 Fenwick & West LLP. All Rights Reserved.​​​​