In Re Tft-Lcd (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115212
N.D. Cal.2011Background
- This MDL involves indirect-purchaser antitrust claims concerning a global TFT-LCD panel price-fixing conspiracy.
- Plaintiffs are U.S. indirect-purchaser consumers who bought products containing TFT-LCD panels via OEMs and retailers, not directly from defendants.
- Defendants manufacture TFT-LCD panels abroad and sell them to foreign entities, with finished products then imported into the United States.
- Plaintiffs allege that the conspiracy raised LCD panel prices between 1999 and 2006 and that overcharges flowed to U.S. consumers through higher prices of finished goods.
- Defendants move for summary judgment on foreign-sales-based indirect-purchaser claims, arguing FTAIA bars such claims and that there was no domestic injury.
- The court denies the motion, holding that the FTAIA is not jurisdictional and that a domestic-injury question remains for the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FTAIA is jurisdictional and the proper standard. | FTAIA is merits-based, not jurisdictional. | FTAIA bars foreign-trade claims; jurisdictional issue. | FTAIA is not jurisdictional; treat as summary judgment issue. |
| Whether the domestic effects exception applies to foreign-price fixing. | There was a direct domestic effect because the conspiracy targeted the U.S. market. | Effects are indirect/ripple effects; no direct domestic injury. | Material fact exists on direct domestic effect; domestic-injury exception applies. |
| Whether the court should address the plaintiffs' state-law claims after FTAIA analysis. | State-law claims should proceed if FTAIA does not bar them. | FTAIA constrains state antitrust laws in foreign conduct. | Court does not reach this issue; domestic-effect ruling suffices. |
| Whether the manufacturing and distribution chain defeats a direct domestic effect. | Conspiracy was aimed at the U.S. market; effects are direct. | Most panels are sold abroad first; impact to U.S. is only indirect. | Direct, immediate effect found; chain does not preclude direct impact. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hartford Fire Ins. v. California, 509 U.S. 764 (1993) (FTAIA's domestic-injury concept and export transactions)
- Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (1996) (clarifies jurisdictional vs. merits-based thresholds)
- DRAM Antitrust Litig., 546 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2008) (ontinuing discussion of FTAIA domestic-injury exception)
- Animal Science Prods., Inc. v. China Minmetals Corp., 654 F.3d 462 (3d Cir. 2011) (FTAIA does not affect subject-matter jurisdiction; merits-based rule)
- Minn-Chem, Inc. v. Agrium, Inc., 657 F.3d 650 (7th Cir. 2011) (discussion of direct vs. ripple effects under FTAIA)
- In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., Not a cited reporter here (2010) (background prior to this decision; discussed for context)
- L.S.L. Biotechnologies v. United States, 379 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2004) (FTAIA treated as jurisdictional before Arbaugh)