In Re Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that high market concentration coupled with multiple and on-going business relationships, cross-licensing and joint-venture agreements, high barriers to entry, and homogeneity in products can be relied on as factors supporting an inference of collusion
• finding antitrust injury across markets for NAND flash memory and finished products containing NAND flash memory
• finding antitrust injury where complaint alleged that the component and finished-product markets were \inextricably intertwined\ with \inherent cross-elasticity of demand between the two\
• rejecting the defendants’ arguments that Associated General applied across-the-board to all the state antitrust laws at issue and instead concluding that it applied only in Iowa, Nebraska, and California
• “Logically, charging higher prices would not deceive or induce a consumer to purchase an item he or she would not otherwise purchase”
• “LaChance merely states that ‘indirect purchasers may bring claims under the CPA.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).