Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—NDCal: Resolution of Dispute over “Damages Period” Must Await Trial of Liquid Crystal Display Price-Fixing Case, (Oct 19, 2012)

By William Zale, J.D.

Dell’s damages claim could not be limited on a defense motion for summary judgment challenging the damages period used by Dell’s expert, in a case involving an alleged price-fixing conspiracy relating to liquid crystal display panels, the federal district court in San Francisco has ruled (In Re: TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, October 16, 2012, Illston, S.).

The defendants sought a ruling that Dell is limited to recovering for its net injury during the conspiracy period, which (based on Dell’s allegations in its complaint) is 2001-2006. The defendants contended that Dell’s damages expert incorrectly based his calculation on the damages period of 2001-2004. The application of the expert’s damages model to the 2001-2006 period would result in a net overcharge of only 1%, as opposed to gross overcharge of 25.8% reported by the expert, according to the defendants.

The court concluded that whether an expert has selected the correct damages period is not an appropriate issue for summary judgment. To the extent defendants believe that Dell’s expert used the wrong end date for his regression analysis, they can challenge that determination through cross examination and the testimony of their own economic expert at trial.

The court noted that for the 2001-2004 period, Dell had taken into account any undercharges, and that the real dispute presented by the defendants’ motion was whether Dell is required to include 2005 and 2006 in its “damages period.”

The case is No. C 10-1064 SI.

Steven Daniel Hemminger (Alston & Bird LLP) for Dell Inc. K.C. Maxwell (Law Office of K.C. Maxwell) for AU Optronics Corporation. Christopher M. Curran (White & Case) for Toshiba American Electronic Components, Inc.

Cases: Antitrust CaliforniaNews