Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: High Court will not consider judicial recusal dispute in monopolization case, (Nov 3, 2014)

By Jeffrey May, J.D.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court denied two petitions, seeking guidance on when judges are obligated to disqualify themselves. The petitions had asked the High Court to consider whether a district court judge should have recused himself in related, but severed, antitrust and trade secrets disputes between E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. (DuPont) and foreign rival Kolon Industries, Inc. due to a purported conflict of interest (Kolon Industries, Inc. v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Dkt. 14-77; Dkt. 14-207).

Kolon filed its first petition for certiorari in July, seeking review of a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, rejecting claims that DuPont engaged in monopolization or attempted monopolization of the U.S. para-aramid market with its “Kevlar” fiber through long-term, exclusive supply agreements. In August, Kolon filed a second petition, seeking review of the appellate court's decision in a companion case, overturning a jury’s $919.9 million verdict in favor of DuPont against Kolon for trade-secret misappropriation but rejecting Kolon’s contention that it should be awarded judgment as a matter of law.

Citing a split among the circuits, Kolon asked the Court whether, under 28 U.S.C. §455(b), a federal judge is relieved of his mandatory statutory duty of self-disqualification, simply because neither party filed a timely motion to disqualify the judge. The judge had refused to recuse himself on the basis that Kolon did not file a timely motion for disqualification.

Attorneys: Stephen B. Kinnaird (Paul Hastings LLP) for Kolon Industries, Inc. David D. Cross (Crowell & Moring LLP) for E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.

Companies: E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.; Kolon Industries, Inc.

News: Antitrust