The legal library gives you easy access to the FTC’s case information and other official legal, policy, and guidance documents.
20051353: BNP Paribas S.A.; FundQuest Incorporated
20051349: Cisco Systems, Inc.; Sheer Networks Inc.
20051346: Sagicor Financial Corporation; Vesta Insurance Group, Inc.
20051344: Perot Systems Corporation; Ronald J. Lockard
20051337: WMB Holdings Inc.; CityBank
20051336: Welsch, Carson, Anderson & Stowe X, L.P.; Pharma Services Holding, Inc.
20051330: Polaris Industries Inc.; Rudolf Knunz
20051329: Polaris Industries Inc.; Stefan Pierer
20051308: Greene Group, Inc.; Cemex S.A. de C.V.
Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc.
20051303: Omnicare, Inc.; excelleRx, Inc.
20051268: Entergy Corporation; Attala 2004 Trust
20051253: Integrated Device Technology, Inc.; Integrated Circuit Systems, Inc.
20051316: New Refco Group Ltd., LLC; Cargill Incorporated
20051341: Department 56, Inc.; Brown-Forman Corporation
Union Oil Company of California, In the Matter of
An administrative law judge dismissed a complaint in its entirety against Union Oil of California that charged the company with committing fraud in connection with regulatory proceedings before the California Air Resources Board regarding the development of reformulated gasoline. The judge ruled much of Unocal’s conduct was permissible activity under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and that the resolution of the issues outlined in the complaint would require an in depth analysis of patent law which he believed were not with the jurisdiction of the Commission. In July 2004, the Commission reversed the judge’s ruling and reinstated charges that Unocal illegally acquired monopoly power in the technology market for producing a “summer-time” low-emissions gasoline mandated for sale and use by the CARB for use in the state for up to eight months of the year. While the case was pending before the administrative law judge, Unocal agreed to settle the claims and cease and desist enforcing Unocal’s patents covering reformulated gasoline that complies with California Air resources Board Standard, will not undertake any new enforcement efforts related to the particular patents, and will cease all attempts to collect damages, royalties, or other payments related to the use of any of the patents. The settlement in this case was related to the settlement of FTC charges that Chevron's acquisition of Unocal would substantially lessen competition in the refining and marketing of CARB reformulated gasoline, as Chevron would acquire the relevant Unocal patents through the acquisition and would be able to use its position to coordinate with its downstream competitors, to the detriment of consumers. See In the Matter of Chevron Corporation and Unocal Corporation.
Chevron Corporation and Unocal Corporation, In the Matter of
Under the terms of the consent orders Chevron and Unocal will cease enforcing Unocal’s patents covering reformulated gasoline that complies with California Air resources Board Standard, will not undertake any new enforcement efforts related to the particular patents, and will cease all attempts to collect damages, royalties, or other payments related to the use of any of the patents. In addition, the companies will dismiss all pending legal actions related to alleged infringement of the patents. According to the complaint, the acquisition of the Unocal patents by Chevron would have facilitated coordinated interaction among downstream refiners and marketers of CARB gasoline.