Aaron M. Panner

January 31, 2024— In a landmark resolution reached just before closing arguments in a jury trial in the Eastern District of Texas, Dexon Computer has dismissed antitrust allegations against Cisco Systems as part of a comprehensive settlement agreement. Dexon will also pay Cisco to resolve Cisco’s counterfeit-trafficking claims pending in the Northern District of California. Dexon, an unauthorized reseller of Cisco products, also agreed to stop selling unauthorized Cisco products, revamp its business model, and apply to join Cisco\'s authorized reseller program. These steps are intended to uphold customer confidence and ensure the delivery of trusted and verified Cisco products. Cisco sued Dexon in the Northern District of California in July 2020, alleging that Dexon trafficked in counterfeit “Cisco” equipment. Dexon brought counterclaims, including under the antitrust laws, but the court dismissed them. Dexon then brought similar antitrust claims in the Eastern District of Texas in April 2022. A jury trial in the latter case began on January 22, 2024, and the presentation of evidence concluded at the end of that week. The parties were scheduled to deliver closing arguments the following Monday, but on Saturday Dexon moved to dismiss its own claims with prejudice. Cisco Systems is represented by attorneys from Kellogg Hansen: Aaron M. Panner, Andrew E. Goldsmith, Leslie V. Pope, Alex A. Parkinson, Ryan M. Folio, Caroline A. Schechinger, Geoffrey J.H Block, D. Chanslor Gallenstein, Jonathan I. Liebman, and Hilary M. Weaver. Kellogg Hansen is grateful for the critical contributions by its co-counsel in Texas, Deron R. Dacus of The Dacus Firm PC and Jennifer H. Doan and Mariah Leigh Hornok of Haltom & Doan, and its co-counsel in both cases, Richard J. Nelson, Louis P. Feuchtbaum, Zachary Alinder, and Lyndsey Heaton of Sideman & Bancroft LLP. The overall litigation effort was led by Cisco’s in-house team, including Sarita Venkat, Karen Lu, Gil Ohana, Michael Blaisdell, and Jon Schwartz. See also: Order of Dismissal (January 29, 2024) ..

April 27, 2023— A D.C. Circuit panel refused to revive a case from brought on by 46 States, the District of Columbia, and Guam which accused Facebook parent company Meta Platforms of monopolizing social networking through “buying or burying” would-be competitors. The States’ Complaint alleged that Facebook adopted policies that prevented competing social platforms from accessing Facebook\'s suite of software tools called \"Facebook Platform.\" The Complaint claimed that these policies resulted in a sudden loss of functionality for competing apps, leaving them \"broken or buggy,\" but Facebook removed these policies in 2018. The Complaint was filed in December 2020 by both the States and the Federal Trade Commission. As such, the panel affirmed the States waited too long by filing a case targeting acquisitions that occurred several years before. Meta has been integrating the services and changing its own products in accordance with the deals and acquisitions. This is a significant refusal-to-deal case and an authoritative opinion from the D.C. Circuit in regard to laches and state sovereigns. It is also an important case in looking to the future of tech, as the panel stated in the Opinion, “the industry [,] . . . even on the States’ allegations, has had rapid growth and innovation with no end in sight.”  Meta Platforms is represented by attorneys from Kellogg Hansen: Aaron Panner, Mark Hansen, Leslie Pope, and Alex Parkinson. Read the full article here. ..

March 30, 2023— A U.S. judge has dismissed a lawsuit against Meta Platforms Inc, formerly known as Facebook, which alleged that its social media business drove a photo software startup, Phhhoto Inc, out of business in violation of federal antitrust law. The lawsuit, filed by Phhhoto Inc in 2021, claimed that Meta\'s Facebook aimed to \"crush\" the photo-sharing application, asserting itself as an \"innovative nascent competitor.\" Phhhoto accused Meta of degrading the quality of its content and app performance and misleading consumers by utilizing its control over critical infrastructure. U.S. District Judge Kiyo Matsumoto in Brooklyn, New York, dismissed the lawsuit, stating that Phhhoto failed to bring its claims within the relevant statute of limitations. Matsumoto emphasized that despite Phhhoto\'s extensive complaint, it did not provide sufficient facts to cure the untimeliness of its federal claims. The court also declined Phhhoto\'s request to refine its case and file another complaint. Meta spokesperson termed the lawsuit as \"meritless\" in a statement. Facebook denied engaging in any anticompetitive behavior. The dismissal of the lawsuit marks a legal victory for Meta Platforms Inc in its ongoing battle against antitrust allegations. While Phhhoto\'s claims were dismissed on procedural grounds, the broader debate around competition in the tech industry continues to evolve, with regulatory scrutiny intensifying on major players like Meta. For Meta: Aaron Panner of Kellogg Hansen Todd Figel & Frederick Read the full article here. ..

May 13, 2019— The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Kellogg Hansen’s clients in one of the most significant victories for private antitrust plaintiffs in the Court’s recent history, Apple Inc. v. Pepper, et al. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court found that iPhone owners may sue Apple as direct purchasers under § 4 of the Clayton Act and Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), for monopolizing the market for iPhone apps.  The Court noted that “[t]he plaintiffs seek to hold retailers to account if the retailers engage in unlawful anticompetitive conduct that harms consumers who purchase from those retailers.  That is why we have antitrust law.”  The ruling affirmed the January 2017 opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which held that “Plaintiffs are direct purchasers from Apple within the meaning of Illinois Brick and therefore have standing.” The Kellogg Hansen team included partners David Frederick, Aaron Panner, and Gregory Rapawy, and associate Benjamin Softness. Mr. Frederick argued on behalf of the consumers before the Supreme Court, and issued the following statement about the opinion: “We’re gratified the Supreme Court today recognized the right of consumers to sue Apple for the damages they sustain from Apple’s monopoly control over the distribution of applications on iPhones. The decision is important for upholding consumer protections against the dangers of monopoly retailers like Apple.  Apple’s monopoly control has distorted the prices for apps and it’s time for that abuse of monopoly power to end.”   The case is Apple Inc. v. Pepper, et al., No. 17-204 (U.S.). ..