Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
775 F.3d 816 (2015)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Motorola Mobility LLC (Motorola) (plaintiff) and its foreign subsidiaries bought liquid-crystal-display (LCD) panels from overseas manufacturers to incorporate into its cellphones. Motorola sued AU Optronics Corp. and other foreign manufacturers (defendants), accusing them of forming a cartel that inflated the prices Motorola paid for panels. But Motorola itself directly purchased only 1 percent of its panels. Foreign subsidiaries purchased the rest, with 42 percent incorporated into phones shipped to Motorola for resale to U.S. customers and 57 percent sold abroad. Motorola’s damages expert testified about amounts subsidiaries overpaid, not amounts Motorola overpaid for fully assembled phones, and Motorola said its claims were not based on purchasing finished phones. The district judge ruled that the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (FTAIA) barred Motorola’s suit with respect to 99 percent of the panels. Motorola appealed, arguing it and its subsidiaries formed essentially one entity, meaning Motorola itself bought the panels and suffered damages. Motorola also argued the panels represented import commerce excluded from FTAIA restrictions. Meanwhile, the Justice Department successfully prosecuted AU Optronics for criminal price-fixing.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Posner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
