Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—9th Cir.: Ninth Circuit stays mandate in Seagate FTAIA appeal pending possible Supreme Court review, (Mar 12, 2026)

By Martin A. Steinberg, J.D.

The stay allows NHK Spring Co., Ltd. to ask the Supreme Court whether the Sherman Act may reach Seagate’s foreign purchases under the FTAIA.

The Ninth Circuit stayed issuance of a mandate for up to 90 days to allow NHK Spring Co., Ltd., to seek Supreme Court review of a panel ruling that allowed Seagate to pursue Sherman Act claims based on foreign suspension-assembly purchases allegedly tied to U.S.-based price negotiations. The mandate, which was scheduled to issue on March 13, 2026, is the court’s formal directive returning the case to the district court. In seeking the stay, NHK argued that the ruling creates a circuit split with the Seventh Circuit’s Motorola Mobility decision, improperly expands the Sherman Act’s extraterritorial reach under the FTAIA, and should be put on hold to avoid wasteful remand proceedings and expert discovery while the certiorari process plays out (Seagate Technology LLC v. NHK Spring Co., Ltd., No. 24-4470 (9th Cir. Mar. 10, 2026)).

Background. NHK pleaded guilty in July 2019 to conspiring to fix prices for suspension assemblies used in hard disk drives, prompting related U.S. antitrust litigation. This appeal, however, concerns a separate action filed in February 2020 by four Seagate entities alleging that they paid inflated prices on direct purchases of suspension assemblies.

The district court previously granted in part and denied in part the NHK defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. It held that NHK was not entitled to summary judgment on antitrust claims arising from direct purchases by Seagate Thailand and Seagate Singapore, in which the products containing those suspension assemblies were later shipped to the United States. But as to products containing those assemblies that never entered the United States, the court found for NHK, concluding that the Seagate plaintiffs had not produced evidence sufficient to establish the FTAIA’s domestic-effects exception.

NHK, in its motion to stay, emphasized that discovery showed the relevant purchases were made only by Seagate Thailand and Seagate Singapore, and that those transactions occurred entirely in Asia: the foreign entities issued the purchase orders, were identified as buyer and billing and shipping parties on the invoices, paid for the goods, took title and possession abroad, and used the assemblies in manufacturing in Thailand or Singapore. Pricing was negotiated through quarterly requests for quotation (RFQs) involving Seagate’s global Commodity Management Team, which included U.S. personnel, and a Product Supply Agreement with Seagate LLC set procedures for future purchases but did not itself effect any sale or set final prices or volumes.

NHK had moved for partial summary judgment in July 2023, arguing that the FTAIA barred claims based on those foreign purchases. Seagate responded that the claims fell either within the statute’s import-commerce exclusion or its domestic-effects exception. In November 2023, the district court granted partial summary judgment to NHK, concluding that neither path brought the foreign purchases within the Sherman Act, because although the alleged conspiracy may have affected U.S. prices, Seagate’s foreign purchases occurred before that domestic effect and therefore were not proximately caused by it. The Ninth Circuit later accepted an interlocutory appeal and, on January 8, 2026, reversed and remanded.

The Panel decision. On January 8, 2026, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s partial summary judgment ruling. The panel first held that the FTAIA’s import exclusion did not apply to Seagate’s foreign purchases, then concluded that the domestic-effects exception could still bring those purchases within the Sherman Act. On the first prong, the panel found a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable domestic effect based largely on NHK’s plea agreement, which admitted price-fixing for suspension assemblies sold in the United States and elsewhere, as well as the exchange of competitive information in negotiations with U.S. and foreign customers. The panel reasoned that it did not matter that Seagate itself did not purchase the assemblies in the U.S., because others did, and the statute required no more for the domestic-effect showing.

The panel found the second prong satisfied because allegedly “tainted” RFQ prices negotiated in the U.S. potentially gave rise to Seagate’s claims, either by directly causing Seagate’s foreign subsidiaries to overpay or by reflecting a single price for both U.S. and foreign transactions. The panel acknowledged tension with the Seventh Circuit’s Motorola decision, but declined to follow it, asserting that Motorola did not substantially engage with the FTAIA’s text and instead rested on derivative-buyer standing. Finally, the panel recognized its ruling could allow a foreign company that bought a price-fixed good abroad from another foreign company to sue under the Sherman Act even if the products never entered the United States, but viewed the Seagate-NHK facts as a sufficiently “unique scenario” involving U.S.-based negotiations and agreements.

Petition for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc. NHK timely filed a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc on January 22, 2026, which the Ninth Circuit denied on March 6, 2026, and the mandate was then scheduled to issue on March 13, 2026. In light of those dates, NHK sought a stay of the mandate while it prepared and pursued a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court.

NHK’s argument for stay. NHK argued that its planned certiorari petition presents a substantial question because the Ninth Circuit’s panel decision squarely conflicts with the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., 775 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2015), on the FTAIA’s reach. NHK said both cases involved foreign subsidiaries making overwhelmingly foreign purchases at prices allegedly influenced by U.S.-based negotiations. NHK said Motorola held that such foreign injuries were not actionable under U.S. antitrust law. In contrast, the panel here held that U.S.-based price negotiations could be sufficient to bring Seagate Thailand’s and Seagate Singapore’s foreign purchases within the Sherman Act's scope. NHK contended that this conflict, on nearly identical facts, creates a circuit split warranting Supreme Court review.

NHK further argued that the issue is exceptionally important because the panel’s ruling allegedly expands the Sherman Act’s extraterritorial reach to allow suits over entirely foreign purchases, even where the goods never entered the United States, so long as some pricing terms were negotiated here. According to NHK, that approach invites foreign plaintiffs into U.S. courts, exposes domestic companies to litigation over overseas transactions, and departs from prior Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit guidance cautioning against extending the Sherman Act to foreign harms. NHK supported that point by invoking F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A., 542 U.S. 155 (2004), McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co., 845 F.2d 802 (9th Cir. 1988), and district court component-pricing cases that, in its view, treated U.S.-based pricing activity as insufficient by itself to convert foreign transactions into domestic antitrust claims.

As to good cause, NHK argued that a stay of the mandate was warranted because, absent a stay, the case would return to the district court for further, expensive proceedings, including expert discovery, while the Supreme Court decides whether to review the case. NHK maintained that if the Court grants certiorari and reverses, that work would be wasted because the FTAIA ruling effectively controls Seagate’s claims. It also pointed out that Seagate itself had previously argued that proceeding during the appeal risked waste, duplication, and unnecessary expenditure of judicial resources, and NHK asserted that the same logic supported a continued pause. Finally, NHK argued that a stay would not unduly prejudice Seagate because the case seeks money damages and Seagate could still pursue its claims if certiorari were denied or the panel were affirmed.

The Case is No. 24-4470.

Judge: Chesney, M.

Attorneys: John Bernard Kenney (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati) for Seagate Technology LLC. Michael Murray (Paul Hastings, LLP) for NHK Spring Co. Ltd.

Companies: Seagate Technology LLC; NHK Spring Co. Ltd.

Cases: Antitrust AlaskaNews ArizonaNews CaliforniaNews HawaiiNews IdahoNews MontanaNews NevadaNews OregonNews WashingtonNews GCNNews