Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—D. Minn.: Noerr-Pennington doctrine precluded Sherman Act liability, (Apr 22, 2014)

By Jody Coultas, J.D.

Pictometry International Corporation did not violate the Sherman Act by sending allegedly deceptive letters to government entities implying that no other competitor could provide the products it provided, the federal district court in Minneapolis has held (Pictometry International Corporation v. Geospan Corporation, April 21, 2014, Montgomery, A.). The conduct was protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.

Pictometry and competitor Geospan Corporation sell products and services in the field of photogrammetry, the science of obtaining accurate information about physical objects through the interpretation of photographs or other visual images. Geospan alleged that Pictometry had monopoly power in the “oblique aerial imaging” market, and sent misleading “sole source” letters to potential “customers,” stating that Pictometry was the only supplier of oblique aerial imaging services in the country.

Geospan’s § 2 Sherman Act claim was dismissed with prejudice by the court because the Noerr-Pennington doctrine shielded Pictometry from liability. Geospan was required to allege that Pictometry possessed monopoly power in the relevant market and willfully acquired or maintained this monopoly power by anticompetitive conduct. The Noerr-Pennington doctrine immunizes companies from liability for efforts taken to influence government action.

Pictometry’s communications with government entities generally was protected by the First Amendment, and thus immunized by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. Pictometry did not have the power or influence to deprive municipal entities of their ability to hold request for proposal processes or seek out other competitors, and Geospan was not foreclosed from sending its own communications.

Merely sending the letters to some private customers did not constitute the willful acquisition and maintenance of monopoly power by anticompetitive conduct, according to the court.

The case is No. 13-2359 ADM/JJK.

Attorneys: Joseph P. Titterington (Dunlap Codding PC) for Pictometry International Corporation. Kurt J. Niederluecke (Fredrikson & Byron, PA) for Geospan Corporation.

Companies: Pictometry International Corporation; Geospan Corporation

Cases: Antitrust MinnesotaNews