Making History: Six Strategic Trials

9 Additional Litigation Successes In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, 24 F.4th 42 (9th Cir. 2022) Plaintiffs, representing putative classes of direct- and indirect-purchasers of DRAM products, alleged that our client Samsung and manufacturers Micron and SK Hynix conspired to restrict supply between 2016 and 2018, causing DRAM prices to skyrocket. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the Northern District of California’s dismissal of the indirect-purchaser complaint (which led to direct-purchaser plaintiffs voluntarily dismissing their appeal). DRAM chips are incorporated in millions of products around the globe, from mobile phones and tablets to automobiles and “smart” appliances. Had their claims gotten off the ground, the putative class plaintiffs would likely have sought billions of dollars in damages from the defendants. Claims Outcome What Was at Stake The plaintiffs’ theory, pointing to specific allegations of information exchanges and other evidence, was that the three largest DRAM suppliers were communicating future output intentions on calls with financial analysts, thereby signaling to one another. Deflating this theory required presenting a comprehensible and compelling explanation of how “oligopolistic” markets function. In demonstrating the insufficiency of plaintiffs’ allegations, we wove together scattered details and easily-overlooked admissions in the plaintiffs’ lengthy complaints to demonstrate why defendants’ supposed actions were more consistent with lawful, independent conduct than illegal collusion. The Winning Strategy Our challenge was explaining why the defendants’ alleged parallel product supply reductions were more consistent with independent decision-making than with collusion. This case required the Ninth Circuit to weigh in on one of the most challenging issues in antitrust law— when pleading a conspiracy on the basis of circumstantial evidence, how much must a plaintiff allege to get past the pleading stage under Twombly’s “plausibility” framework? In a 23-page published opinion, a unanimous Ninth Circuit panel methodically examined each of the plaintiffs’ alleged “plus factors” to provide clear jurisprudence on what it takes to survive a motion to dismiss. Why It Matters

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTcyMDE0