Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—N.D. Cal.: Lithium ion batteries price fixing claims against Toshiba not time-barred, (Mar 17, 2016)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

A genuine dispute of material fact exists about whether Toshiba Corp. withdrew from a conspiracy to fix the prices of lithium ion battery cells by the end of 2004, the federal district court in Oakland, California, has decided. Toshiba’s motion for summary judgment, based on arguments that the price fixing conspiracy claims were time-barred, was consequently denied (In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation, March 16, 2016, Rogers, Y.).

Toshiba, along with other Japanese and Korean corporations and their U.S. subsidiaries, have been accused of fixing the prices of lithium ion battery cells—the chemical core of rechargeable batteries found in consumer electronics products. Toshiba claimed, however, that it withdrew from any conspiracy by the end of 2004 through the sale of its lithium ion cell manufacturing business. The company therefore moved for summary judgment, arguing that the price fixing conspiracy claims against it were time-barred.

The court denied the motion for summary judgment, finding that genuine disputes of material fact exist with regard to whether Toshiba continued to benefit from and participate in the alleged conspiracy. In particular, the court found that Toshiba potentially remained a member of and participated in a battery trade association alongside other alleged conspirators; held onto and selectively licensed “valuable IP” concerning lithium ion battery technology; and discarded certain manufacturing equipment that might have been sold to non-conspirators. Toshiba also admitted to storing cells it had produced prior to selling the manufacturing business, aggregated those cells into battery packs, and sold the battery packs through at least 2007, earning almost $1 million in revenue.

The case is No. 13-MD-2420 YGR.

Attorneys: Jeff D. Friedman (Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP) for Kevin Young. Todd Anthony Seaver (Berman DeValerio) for Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs. Demetrius Xavier Lambrinos (Zelle LLP) for Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs. Reginald David Steer (Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP) for LG Chem Ltd. John C. Dwyer (Cooley LLP) for Sony Corp. Michael W. Scarborough (Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP) for Samsung SDI America Inc. Christopher M. Curran (White & Case LLP) for Toshiba Corp.

Companies: Toshiba Corp.; LG Chem Ltd.; Sony Corp.; Samsung SDI America Inc.

Cases: Antitrust CaliforniaNews