RITZ CAMERA & IMAGE, LLC v. SANDISK CORP.

No. 2012-1183.

700 F.3d 503 (2012)

RITZ CAMERA & IMAGE, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SANDISK CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

November 20, 2012.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Joseph S. Hall , Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C., of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the brief were Steven F. Benz , William J. Rinner , and Alexander S. Edelson . Of counsel on the brief was R. Stephen Berry , Berry Law PLLC, of Washington, DC.

Raoul D. Kennedy , Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, of Palo Alto, California, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were David W. Hansen , James P. Schaefer , Travis M. Jensen , and Joshua M. Templet .

Kristen C. Limarzi , Attorney, Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for amici curiae United States, et al. With her on the brief were Joseph F. Wayland , Acting Assistant Attorney General, and Catherine G. O'Sullivan , Attorney. Of counsel on the brief were Willard K. Tom , General Counsel, and John F. Daly , Deputy General Counsel, Federal Trade Commission, of Washington, DC.

J. Douglas Richards , Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, of New York, New York, for amici curiae American Antitrust Institute, et al. With him on the brief was Michael B. Eisenkraft .

Leslie B. Dubeck , Assistant Solicitor General, State of New York, of New York, New York, for amici curiae State of New York, et al. With her on the brief were Eric T. Schneiderman , Attorney General, Barbara D. Underwood , Solicitor General, C. Scott Hemphill , Chief, Antitrust Bureau, Steven C. Wu , Assistant Solicitor General, and Saami Zain , Assistant Attorney General of Counsel.

Michael A. Carrier , Rutgers School of Law — Camden, of Camden, New Jersey, for amici curiae 27 U.S. Antitrust, Intellectual Property, and Innovation Professors.

Before BRYSON, DYK, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.


BRYSON, Circuit Judge.

This case comes to us on an interlocutory appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The certified question concerns the limits on standing to bring so-called Walker Process antitrust claims. The Supreme Court in Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U.S. 172, 86 S.Ct. 347, 15...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases