Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—NDCal: Summary Judgment Denied for Mobile Phone LCD Manufacturers, (Dec 5, 2012)

By Tobias J. Gillett, J.D., LLM.

The federal district court in San Francisco has refused to dismiss claims regarding purchases of mobile phone LCD panels in price fixing litigation against the displays’ manufacturers (In Re: TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, December 4, 2012, Illston, S.). The court found that the plaintiff retailers and OEM manufacturers of mobile phones had alleged sufficient evidence of a conspiracy that extended to mobile phone LCD panels, and of the LCD manufacturers’ involvement in it, to survive summary judgment.

The motion, one element in multi-district antitrust litigation concerning alleged price fixing in the LCD panel manufacturing industry, addressed claims brought by manufacturers of mobile phones employing those panels and retailers of those mobile phones. The defendant manufacturers, Chunghwa Picture Tubes and HannStar Display Corporation, moved for summary judgment on all claims involving sale of mobile phone LCD panels or mobile phones containing those panels, arguing that insufficient evidence existed that they had conspired to fix the prices of those panels, as opposed to larger panels.

The manufacturers contended that their prior guilty pleas to antitrust charges only extended to price fixing of panels used primarily in laptop computers and computer monitors. They also argued that evidence showed that the meetings in which the conspirators set prices and the agreements resulting from those meetings only involved price fixing of larger panels. Moreover, they pointed out that neither Chunghwa nor HannStar had qualified as a supplier for the OEM plaintiffs, and thus could not have supplied any panels to them.

The court concluded that sufficient admissible evidence that the manufacturers conspired to fix the prices of the panels existed to deny their motion for summary judgment. The court referred to evidence demonstrating that LCD manufacturers, including Chungwha and HannStar, “exchanged information about production, capacity, and shipment volumes during” industry meetings. Furthermore, evidence showed that Chungwha and HannStar manufactured handset LCD panels during the period of the alleged conspiracy, “and thus there is a question as to whether defendants were actual or potential competitors in the mobile phone display market.”

Moreover, under the principle that all members of an antitrust conspiracy “are jointly liable” for the actions of their co-conspirators “to restrain or monopolize trade,” Chunghwa and HannStar would still be “liable for the actions taken by others in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy.”

The case is No. M M 07-1827 SI, MDL. No. 1827.

Janet Irene Levine (Crowell & Moring LLP) for AT&T Corp. Robert Frietas (Freitas Tseng & Kaufman LLP) for Chunghwa Picture Tubes.

Cases: Antitrust CaliforniaNews