1 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT 

 

 ) No. 14-8003 

MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, ) 

 ) On Interlocutory Appeal from an 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Order of the United States District 

 ) Court for the Northern District of 

 v. ) Illinois 

 ) 

AU OPTRONICS CORP., et al., ) 

 ) Case No. 09-cv-6610 

 Defendants-Appellees. ) (The Honorable Joan B. Gottschall) 

 ) 

UNOPPOSED MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE FEDERAL 

TRADE COMMISSION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THE ATTACHED AMICUS 

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PANEL REHEARING OR REHEARING EN BANC

The United States and the Federal Trade Commission respectfully move for leave to 

file the attached amicus brief in support of panel rehearing or rehearing en banc under 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a) and Seventh Circuit Rule 35. This case raises 

important issues regarding the proper interpretation of the Foreign Trade Antitrust 

Improvements Act of 1982 (FTAIA). The United States and the Federal Trade 

Commission enforce the federal antitrust laws and have a strong interest in the correct 

interpretation of the FTAIA. 

In this case, Motorola Mobility LLC has alleged a global conspiracy to fix the price of 

LCD panels incorporated into cellphones and other popular consumer devices in 

violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. On March 27, 2014, a threejudge panel of this Court granted Motorola’s petition for interlocutory appeal and 

simultaneously rendered a decision concluding that the FTAIA bars Motorola’s claims 

Case: 14-8003 Document: 23-1 Filed: 04/24/2014 Pages: 5 (1 of 27)
2 

for damages based on overcharges on LCD panels that were delivered to its foreign 

subsidiaries abroad for incorporation into cellphones sold in the United States. 

The panel did not have the benefit of the government’s views before rendering its 

decision. The United States and the Federal Trade Commission believe that the attached 

amicus brief setting forth the government’s views would be of substantial assistance to 

the Court. 

On April 23, 2014, the United States asked counsel for the parties what their position 

would be on a motion for leave to file a government amicus brief in support of panel 

rehearing or rehearing en banc. Thomas Goldstein informed the government that 

Motorola consents. Derek Ludwin informed the government that he is authorized to 

represent that defendants-appellees do not oppose the motion and that, because they 

have not yet seen the motion for leave, they have not yet determined whether they 

intend to a file a response to the motion. 

The government will file 30 copies of the amicus brief should the Court grant the 

motion. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

April 24, 2014 /s/ Nickolai G. Levin 

 Nickolai G. Levin 

 U.S. Department of Justice 

 Antitrust Division, Appellate Section 

 950 Pennsylvania Ave., Office 3224 

 Washington, DC 20530 

 (202) 514-2886 (phone) 

 (202) 514-0536 (fax) 

Case: 14-8003 Document: 23-1 Filed: 04/24/2014 Pages: 5 (2 of 27)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT 

 

 ) No. 14-8003 

MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, ) 

 ) On Interlocutory Appeal from an 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Order of the United States District 

 ) Court for the Northern District of 

 v. ) Illinois 

 ) 

AU OPTRONICS CORP., et al., ) 

 ) Case No. 09-cv-6610 

 Defendants-Appellees. ) (The Honorable Joan B. Gottschall) 

 ) 

DECLARATION 

I, Nickolai G. Levin, a member of the Bar of the District of Columbia, declare as 

follows: 

1. The United States and the Federal Trade Commission enforce the federal antitrust 

laws. 

2. The United States and the Federal Trade Commission have a strong interest in the 

proper interpretation of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982. 

3. On April 23, 2014, I asked counsel for the parties what their position would be on 

a motion for leave to file a government amicus brief in support of panel rehearing or 

rehearing en banc. Thomas Goldstein informed the government that Motorola consents. 

Derek Ludwin informed the government that he is authorized to represent that 

defendants-appellees do not oppose the motion and that, because they have not yet seen 

the motion for leave, they have not yet determined whether they intend to a file a 

response to the motion. 

I affirm under penalties of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1746. 

Case: 14-8003 Document: 23-1 Filed: 04/24/2014 Pages: 5 (3 of 27)
April 24, 2014 /s/ Nickolai G. Levin 

 Nickolai G. Levin 

Case: 14-8003 Document: 23-1 Filed: 04/24/2014 Pages: 5 (4 of 27)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Nickolai G. Levin, certify that on April 24, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing 

Unopposed Motion of the United States and the Federal Trade Commission for Leave To 

File an Amicus Brief in Support of Panel Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc and 

supporting declaration with the Clerk of the Court of the United States Court of Appeals 

for the Seventh Circuit by using the CM/ECF System. If the motion is granted, I will 

send 30 copies of the attached amicus brief to the Clerk of the Court by FedEx. 

I further certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and 

that service will be accomplished by the CM/ECF system. 

April 24, 2014 /s/ Nickolai G. Levin

 Nickolai G. Levin 

 

Case: 14-8003 Document: 23-1 Filed: 04/24/2014 Pages: 5 (5 of 27)
 

No. 14-8003 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT 

____________________ 

MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

AU OPTRONICS CORP., et al., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

____________________ 

On Interlocutory Appeal from an Order of the

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois 

Case No. 09-cv-6610 (The Honorable Joan B. Gottschall) 

____________________ 

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AND THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AS 

AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PANEL REHEARING OR REHEARING EN BANC

____________________ 

DAVID C. SHONKA

 Acting General Counsel 

JOHN F. DALY 

 Deputy General Counsel for Litigation 

MARK S. HEGEDUS 

Attorney 

Office of the General Counsel 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

WILLIAM J. BAER

Assistant Attorney General 

BRENT SNYDER 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

KRISTEN C. LIMARZI 

JAMES J. FREDRICKS 

NICKOLAI G. LEVIN 

Attorneys 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Antitrust Division 

950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 

Room 3224 

Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 

(202) 514-2886 

Case: 14-8003 Document: 23-2 Filed: 04/24/2014 Pages: 22 (6 of 27)
ii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................ iii 

STATEMENT OF INTEREST............................................................................................... 1 

STATEMENT OF ISSUES .................................................................................................... 1 

STATEMENT ........................................................................................................................ 1 

ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................ 6 

I. The Panel’s View Of The Effects Exception’s Directness Requirement 

Conflicts With Minn-Chem And Other Circuit Precedent ...................................... 7 

II. Whether The Effect On U.S. Commerce Gives Rise To Motorola’s Claims 

Warrants Further Briefing And Argument ............................................................. 13 

CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 15 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .................................................................................... 17 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................................ 18 

Case: 14-8003 Document: 23-2 Filed: 04/24/2014 Pages: 22 (7 of 27)
iii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

 FEDERAL CASES 

Blue Shield of Virginia v. McCready, 457 U.S. 465 (1982) ............................................... 15 

Empagran S.A. v. F. Hoffman-LaRoche, Ltd., 417 F.3d 1267 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ............... 13 

F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A., 542 U.S. 155 (2004) ..................... passim

Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764 (1993) ..................................... 11 

Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977) ..................................................... 9, 10, 14 

Illinois v. Ampress Brick Co., 536 F.2d 1163 (7th Cir. 1976) ............................................. 9 

Industria Siciliana Asfalti, Bitumi, S.p.A. v. Exxon Research & Engeneering 

Co., No. 75 Civ. 5828, 1977 WL 1353 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 1977) ................................... 15 

In re Dynamic Random Access Memory Antitrust Litigation, 

546 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2008) ....................................................................................... 14 

In re Monosodium Glutamate Antitrust Litigation, 

477 F.3d 535 (8th Cir. 2007) ....................................................................................... 14 

In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, 

822 F. Supp. 2d 953 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ......................................................................... 10 

In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litigation, 214 F.3d 395 (3d Cir. 2000) ...................... 9 

Kruman v. Christie's International PLC, 284 F.3d 384 (2d Cir. 2002) ........................... 15 

Loeb Industries v. Sumitomo Corp., 306 F.3d 469 (7th Cir. 2002) .................................. 9 

Metallgesellschaft AG v. Sumitomo Corp. of America, 325 F.3d 836 

(7th Cir. 2003) .............................................................................................................. 8 

Minn-Chem, Inc. v. Agrium, Inc., 683 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 2012) (en banc)............. passim

Paroline v. United States, No. 12-8561 (U.S. Apr. 23, 2014) ............................................. 9

Pfizer, Inc. v. Government of India, 434 U.S. 308 (1978) ................................................. 7 

TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (2001) .......................................................................... 8 

U.S. Gypsum Co. v. Indiana Gas Co., 350 F.3d 623 (7th Cir. 2003) ............................ 9, 14 

Case: 14-8003 Document: 23-2 Filed: 04/24/2014 Pages: 22 (8 of 27)
iv 

United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945) ........................ 11 

United States v. Leija-Sanchez, 602 F.3d 797 (7th Cir. 2010) .......................................... 12 

United States v. Nippon Paper Industries Co., 109 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1997) ........................ 12 

 

 STATUTES AND RULES 

15 U.S.C.: 

§ 1......... ................................................................................................................................ 2 

§ 4 ....................................................................................................................................... 2 

§ 6a............................................................................................................................. passim 

§ 15 ....................................................................................................................................... 2 

§ 26 ................................................................................................................................. 2, 14 

§ 45(a)(3) .......................................................................................................................... 1, 2 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a) ......................................................................... 1 

Pub. L. No. 97-290, § 102(b), 96 Stat. 1233 (1982) ............................................................ 2 

Seventh Circuit Rule 35 ........................................................................................................ 1 

 MISCELLANEOUS 

1B Philip E. Areeda & Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law (4th ed. 2013)..................9, 11 

Florian Wagner-von Papp, Competition Law and Extraterritoriality, in Research 

 Handbook on International Competition Law (Ariel Ezrachi ed. 2012) ..................12 

H.R. Rep. No. 97-686 (1982), reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2487................................. 7 

 

J.G. Sutherland & John R. Berryman, A Treatise on the Law of Damages

(2d ed. 1893) .............................................................................................................. 10 

Case: 14-8003 Document: 23-2 Filed: 04/24/2014 Pages: 22 (9 of 27)
STATEMENT OF INTEREST 

The United States and the Federal Trade Commission enforce the federal antitrust 

laws and have a strong interest in the correct interpretation of the Foreign Trade 

Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982 (FTAIA), which added Section 6a to the Sherman 

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6a. Section 6a makes the Sherman Act’s other sections inapplicable to 

conduct involving export or wholly foreign commerce except when that conduct (i) has a 

“direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect” on certain U.S. commerce and (ii) 

that effect “gives rise to a claim.” The FTAIA also added Section 5(a)(3) to the FTC Act, 

15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(3), which closely parallels Section 6a. This amicus brief addresses both 

prongs of the effects exception, and is submitted pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 29(a) and Seventh Circuit Rule 35. 

STATEMENT OF ISSUES 

1. Whether the panel erred in holding that fixing the price of a component sold 

abroad cannot have a direct effect on U.S. domestic or import commerce in products 

incorporating the component. 

2. Whether the panel erred in holding that such an effect cannot give rise to an 

antitrust claim in the United States. 

STATEMENT 

This case involves a global conspiracy to fix the price of LCD panels incorporated 

into cellphones and other popular consumer devices. Without the benefit of briefing by 

the parties and amici or oral argument, the panel affirmed summary judgment on a 

basis neither advanced by the parties nor adopted by either of the district courts that 

ruled on summary judgment. The panel held that Section 6a precludes any antitrust 

Case: 14-8003 Document: 23-2 Filed: 04/24/2014 Pages: 22 (10 of 27)
2 

claims for price fixing of products sold abroad, no matter how massively and predictably 

U.S. consumers were harmed. The panel decision should be vacated. 

1. Section 1 of the Sherman Act is a criminal statute that outlaws agreements “in 

restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations.” 15 

U.S.C. § 1. This includes conspiracies among competitors to fix prices, which are 

criminally prosecuted as felonies. In addition to criminal prosecutions, the government 

can “institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain [Section 1] violations.” Id. 

§ 4. Also, “any person” who is “injured . . . by reason of” a violation can seek treble 

damages, id. § 15, and “any person” can seek “injunctive relief . . . against threatened 

loss or damage by a violation,” id. § 26. 

Congress enacted the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982, which 

added Section 6a to the Sherman Act, with the express purpose to “increase United 

States exports of products and services,” Pub. L. No. 97-290, § 102(b), 96 Stat. 1233, 

1234. Section 6a provides that: 

Sections 1 to 7 of [the Sherman Act] shall not apply to conduct involving trade or 

commerce (other than import trade or import commerce) with foreign nations 

unless— 

(1) such conduct has a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect— 

(A) on trade or commerce which is not trade or commerce with foreign 

nations, or on import trade or import commerce with foreign nations; or 

(B) on export trade or export commerce with foreign nations, of a person 

engaged in such trade or commerce in the United States; and 

(2) such effect gives rise to a claim under the provisions of sections 1 to 7 of this 

title, other than this section. 

15 U.S.C. § 6a; see also 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(3) (FTAIA addition to the FTC Act). 

Case: 14-8003 Document: 23-2 Filed: 04/24/2014 Pages: 22 (11 of 27)
3 

Section 6a “seeks to make clear to American exporters (and to firms doing business 

abroad) that the Sherman Act does not prevent them from entering into business 

arrangements . . . however anticompetitive, as long as those arrangements adversely 

affect only foreign markets.” F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A., 542 U.S. 

155, 161 (2004). Congress also sought to ensure that purchasers in the United States 

remained fully protected by the federal antitrust laws. Accordingly, conduct involving 

“[i]mport trade and commerce are excluded at the outset from the coverage of the 

FTAIA in the same way that domestic interstate commerce is excluded.” Minn-Chem, 

Inc. v. Agrium, Inc., 683 F.3d 845, 854 (7th Cir. 2012) (en banc). And the FTAIA leaves 

conduct involving export or wholly foreign commerce inside the Sherman Act’s reach 

when “the conduct both (1) sufficiently affects American commerce, i.e., it has a ‘direct, 

substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect’ on American domestic, import or 

(certain) export commerce, and (2) has an effect of a kind that antitrust law considers 

harmful, i.e., the ‘effect’ must ‘giv[e] rise to a [Sherman Act] claim.’” Empagran, 542 

U.S. at 162 (quoting 15 U.S.C. §§ 6a(1), (2)). 

2. Motorola Mobility Inc. (Motorola) filed suit against foreign makers of LCD panels 

in the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that defendants violated Section 1 of the 

Sherman Act by conspiring to fix the price of LCD panels world-wide from 1996 to 2006. 

Motorola alleged that the conspiracy not only raised prices on LCD panels but also led to 

increased prices on cellphones and other products in which the panels were 

incorporated, many of which were “specifically destined for sale and use in the United 

States.” 07-1827 N.D. Cal. Dkt. 3173, at 52. 

Motorola sought damages for overcharges based on three categories of price-fixed 

panels: (I) LCD panels purchased by Motorola that were delivered to it in the United 

Case: 14-8003 Document: 23-2 Filed: 04/24/2014 Pages: 22 (12 of 27)
4 

States, (II) LCD panels purchased by Motorola’s foreign subsidiaries and delivered to 

them outside the United States, where they were incorporated into cellphones later sold 

in the United States, and (III) LCD panels purchased by the foreign subsidiaries and 

delivered to them outside the United States, where they were incorporated into 

cellphones later sold in foreign countries. 

The case was transferred to the Northern District of California for pretrial 

proceedings as part of multi-district litigation. Defendants moved for partial summary 

judgment, arguing that Section 6a barred Motorola’s Category II and III damages 

claims. The MDL Court denied the motion, holding that the evidence of price-fixing 

conduct in the United States sufficiently established that the conduct had a direct, 

substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on U.S. commerce, which gave rise to 

Motorola’s claims. 07-1827 N.D. Cal. Dkt. 6422, at 5. 

The case was remanded to the Northern District of Illinois for trial. Defendants 

sought reconsideration of the MDL Court’s denial of partial summary judgment, arguing 

only that any effect the price-fixing conspiracy had on U.S. commerce did not give rise 

to Motorola’s Category II and III claims so they are barred by Section 6a. 09-6610 N.D. 

Ill. Dkt. 182, at 15. The district court granted the motion. It assumed that the conspiracy 

had a direct effect on U.S. commerce, but held that this effect did not give rise to the 

claims at issue because Motorola had not shown that these injuries were proximately 

caused by the domestic effect rather than by the price fixing itself. Id. at 17. The court 

also held that even if “Motorola’s domestic approval of the prices that its foreign 

affiliates paid [were] an effect that gave rise to its Sherman Act claims,” that effect would 

not be “a ‘substantial’ effect on American domestic or import commerce.” Id. at 18. 

Case: 14-8003 Document: 23-2 Filed: 04/24/2014 Pages: 22 (13 of 27)
5 

3. On March 13, 2014, Motorola filed an uncontested petition for interlocutory 

appeal. On March 27, a panel of this Court (Judges Posner, Kanne, and Rovner) granted 

the petition. While recognizing that this was a “complicated” case with “room for a 

difference of opinion,” the panel nevertheless “dispense[d] with further briefing and 

with oral argument” and affirmed the summary judgment order. Op. 2-3. The panel 

concluded that Section 6a applied to Motorola’s Category II and III claims and that they 

did not meet the requirements of the effects exception.1 The panel deemed “frivolous” 

the Category III claims seeking damages based on price-fixed panels incorporated into 

cellphones sold in foreign countries, because those panels “never entered the United 

States, so never became domestic commerce.” Id. 

For the Category II claims seeking damages based on panels incorporated into 

cellphones sold in the United States, the panel acknowledged that, if the price fixing 

were proved, there was “doubtless some effect” on U.S. commerce in cellphones, and 

this effect was foreseeable. Op. 4. “And who knows what ‘substantial’ means in this 

context?” Id. Nevertheless, the panel held that the “effect” was “indirect―or ‘remote,’ 

the term used in Minn-Chem.” Id. “The effect of component price fixing on the price of 

the product of which it is a component is indirect, compared to the situation in MinnChem, where ‘foreign sellers allegedly created a cartel, took steps outside the United 

States to drive the price up of a product that is wanted in the United States, and then 

(after succeeding in doing so) sold that product to U.S. customers.’” Id. at 4-5 (quoting 

Minn-Chem, 683 F.3d at 860; emphasis added by panel). 

 

1 The panel noted that Section 6a would not apply (and thus Section 1 would apply) to 

Motorola’s Category I claims seeking damages based on LCD panels sold to Motorola in the 

United States, because they are within Section 6a’s import commerce exclusion, but that these 

claims are not involved in this appeal. Op. 4. 

Case: 14-8003 Document: 23-2 Filed: 04/24/2014 Pages: 22 (14 of 27)
6 

The panel further held that the Category II claims also failed the effects exception’s 

requirement that the effect on U.S. commerce “give[s] rise to” an antitrust claim. Op. 5. 

The conspiracy’s effect on domestic commerce in cellphones “is mediated by Motorola’s 

decision on what price to charge U.S. consumers for the cellphones manufactured 

abroad” that contain price-fixed LCD panels. Id. at 6. Motorola could not be “sued by its 

U.S. customers for an antitrust offense merely because the prices it charges for devices 

that include such components may be higher than they would be were it not for the price 

fixing,” nor could Motorola sue itself. Id. Thus, “the effect in the United States of the 

price fixing could not give rise to an antitrust claim.” Id. 

The panel also rested its decision on “practical” considerations apart from the 

statutory language. Op. 7. In its view, allowing the Category II claims would 

“enormously increase the global reach of the Sherman Act,” “creating friction with many 

foreign countries.” Id. at 8. 

ARGUMENT 

Defendants’ motion for reconsideration raised a single issue: whether the effect on 

U.S. commerce gave rise to Motorola’s Category II and III claims. 09-6610 N.D. Ill. Dkt. 

182, at 15. The panel, however, held Motorola’s claims deficient on a separate, broader 

basis: that a conspiracy to fix the price of a component cannot have a direct effect on 

domestic or import commerce in the products incorporating that component as a matter 

of law. The panel thus limited the application of a federal criminal statute on a basis not 

found in the decision under review or addressed by the parties in their briefing in this 

Court or in the court below. The panel also did not have the benefit of views from the 

government or other affected amici. 

Case: 14-8003 Document: 23-2 Filed: 04/24/2014 Pages: 22 (15 of 27)
7 

Rehearing or rehearing en banc is necessary because the panel decision conflicts 

with Minn-Chem, Inc. v. Agrium, Inc., 683 F.3d 845, 853-54 (7th Cir. 2012) (en banc), 

and other Circuit precedent, and raises exceptionally important questions about the 

reach of the Sherman Act. The panel decision should be vacated because its resolution of 

these questions threatens the ability of government law enforcement and private actions 

to prevent and redress massive harm to U.S. consumers. 

I. The Panel’s View Of The Effects Exception’s Directness Requirement 

Conflicts With Minn-Chem And Other Circuit Precedent 

“Congress’ foremost concern in passing the antitrust laws was the protection of 

Americans.” Pfizer, Inc. v. Gov’t of India, 434 U.S. 308, 314 (1978). When adding the 

FTAIA to the antitrust laws, Congress “preserv[ed] antitrust protections in the domestic 

marketplace for all purchasers.” H.R. Rep. No. 97-686, at 10 (1982), reprinted in 1982 

U.S.C.C.A.N. 2487, 2495. Thus, Section 6a leaves the Sherman Act applicable to 

anticompetitive conduct involving U.S. domestic or import commerce, and to conduct 

involving U.S. export commerce and wholly foreign commerce when that conduct harms 

U.S. domestic or import commerce (or certain export commerce). 

In Minn-Chem, the en banc Court rejected the idea that an effect on U.S. commerce 

is “direct” only “if it follows ‘as an immediate consequence’ of the defendant’s activity.” 

683 F.3d at 857. As the Court explained, “[s]uperimposing the idea of ‘immediate 

consequence’ on top of the full [integrated] phrase [‘direct, substantial, and reasonably 

foreseeable’] results in a stricter test than the complete text of the statute can bear.” Id. 

Moreover, demanding an “‘immediate’ consequence on import or domestic commerce 

comes close to ignoring the fact that straightforward import commerce has already been 

excluded from the FTAIA’s coverage.” Id. The Court was thus “persuaded that the 

Case: 14-8003 Document: 23-2 Filed: 04/24/2014 Pages: 22 (16 of 27)
8 

Department of Justice’s approach”―that “‘direct’” means only “a reasonably proximate 

causal nexus”―“is more consistent with the language of the statute” and properly 

“addresses the classic concern about remoteness,” excluding “from the Sherman Act 

foreign activities that are too remote from the ultimate effects on U.S. domestic or 

import commerce.” Id. 

The panel purported to apply Minn-Chem, but its decision undercuts Minn-Chem’s 

holding by declaring the effects here too “remote.” Op. 4-5. The panel found significant 

that, unlike in Minn-Chem, the defendants here did not sell the Category II panels 

directly “to U.S. customers.” Id. (quoting Minn-Chem, 683 F.3d at 860; emphasis added 

by panel). But when a foreign cartel fixes the price of goods sold directly to U.S. 

customers, the import commerce exclusion applies. See Minn-Chem, 683 F.3d at 854-55 

(the import commerce exclusion applies to goods “being sent directly into the United 

States,” i.e., “pure import commerce”). Limiting the effects exception to direct sales to 

U.S. customers would render the exception “superfluous . . . or insignificant,” violating a 

“cardinal principle” of statutory interpretation. TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 31 

(2001). 

In applying the effects exception, this Court has recognized that “domestic and 

foreign markets are interrelated and influence each other.” Metallgesellschaft AG v. 

Sumitomo Corp. of Am., 325 F.3d 836, 842 (7th Cir. 2003). Congress created the effects 

exception because it understood that conduct involving wholly foreign commerce can 

have significant anticompetitive effects on U.S. domestic or import commerce and 

wanted that conduct to remain subject to the Sherman Act’s protections. Cf. id. (holding 

that the effects exception applied to claims brought by a foreign plaintiff involving its 

purchase of copper futures contracts on the London Metals Exchange). 

Case: 14-8003 Document: 23-2 Filed: 04/24/2014 Pages: 22 (17 of 27)
9 

To be sure, some effects on U.S. commerce would be indirect or too remote. For 

instance, the effect would not be direct where the causal connection between the 

conduct and the U.S. effect is “so attenuated that the consequence is more aptly 

described as mere fortuity,” Paroline v. United States, No. 12-8561, Slip. Op. 7 (U.S. 

Apr. 23, 2014). Cf. 1B Philip E. Areeda & Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law ¶ 272f2, at 

295-96 (4th ed. 2013) (the “higher local price for electricity” outside the United States 

caused by “an agreement among non-American producers in Africa” to raise the price of 

electrical transformers would cause U.S. exporters to export “fewer electricity-using 

machines,” but “obvious[ly]” that effect would not put the agreement in “the Sherman 

Act’s reach”). But the existence of several steps in the causal chain does not alone render 

an effect indirect or too remote. In Loeb Industries v. Sumitomo Corp., 306 F.3d 469 

(7th Cir. 2002), this Court held the injury of copper wire producers was “direct” because 

it was not too remote from unlawful activity in the copper futures market. Id. at 486-89. 

Similarly, injuries to indirect purchasers are not too remote, even when they are 

several steps removed from the antitrust defendant in the chain of distribution. See In re 

Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litig., 214 F.3d 395, 399-401 (3d Cir. 2000). While Illinois 

Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), would ordinarily bar indirect purchasers from 

recovering damages for these injuries, such indirect purchasers can seek injunctive 

relief. Warfarin Sodium, 214 F.3d at 399-400; see also U.S. Gypsum Co. v. Indiana Gas 

Co., 350 F.3d 623, 627 (7th Cir. 2003) (Illinois Brick’s “direct-purchaser doctrine does 

not foreclose equitable relief”). 

In the decision under review in Illinois Brick, this Court had held that a downstream 

(indirect) purchaser’s injury based on passed-on overcharges is not too remote, Illinois 

v. Ampress Brick Co., 536 F.2d 1163, 1164-66 (7th Cir. 1976), and the Supreme Court 

Case: 14-8003 Document: 23-2 Filed: 04/24/2014 Pages: 22 (18 of 27)
10 

specifically declined to disturb that holding, see Illinois Brick, 431 U.S. at 728 n.7. This 

conclusion—that downstream injuries are not too remote—comports with classical 

principles of proximate causation: “The test is not to be found in any arbitrary number 

of intervening events or agents, but in their character, and in the natural and probable 

connection between the wrong done and the injury.” 1 J.G. Sutherland & John R. 

Berryman, A Treatise on the Law of Damages 35-36, 77 (2d ed. 1893) 

Applying these principles to the record, the conspiracy’s effect on U.S. commerce in 

cellphones is direct. The natural and probable consequence of increasing the price of a 

critical and substantial component like LCD panels is an increase in the price of 

cellphones. Nor does the effect become speculative or uncertain because it is “mediated” 

by Motorola’s decision on what price to charge for its cellphones. Op. 6. There is 

evidence that the overcharges on the price-fixed panels have been passed on to 

cellphone purchasers in the United States. See, e.g., 07-1827 N.D. Cal. Dkt. 7843-4, 

¶ 451, at 196-97. Thus, the “effect of defendants’ anticompetitive conduct did not change 

significantly between the beginning of the process (overcharges for LCD panels) and the 

end (overcharges for [cellphones incorporating those panels]),” and it “‘proceeded 

without deviation or interruption’ from the LCD manufacturer to the American retail 

store.” In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., 822 F. Supp. 2d 953, 964 (N.D. Cal. 

2011). This is why the effect on U.S. commerce in cellphones is “doubtless” (Op. 4). 

Unless vacated, the panel’s narrow view of the statutory term “direct” is likely to 

constrain the government’s ability to effectively prosecute cartels that substantially and 

intentionally harm U.S. commerce and consumers, as well as prevent those injured in 

the United States from redressing that harm. “Nothing is more common nowadays than 

for products imported to the United States to include components that the producers 

Case: 14-8003 Document: 23-2 Filed: 04/24/2014 Pages: 22 (19 of 27)
11 

had bought from foreign manufacturers.” Op. 7. Anticompetitive conduct involving 

those component purchases often causes significant harm in the downstream consumer 

markets. See, e.g., 1B Areeda & Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law ¶ 272i1, at 309 (“Many, 

perhaps most, restraints are on ‘intermediate’ goods,” but effects “that occur in 

upstream markets quickly filter into consumer markets as well.”). 

Lastly, the “practical” considerations cited by the panel, including the need to avoid 

“friction with many foreign countries,” Op. 7-8, do not support its view that the 

Sherman Act cannot apply here. Congress “deliberately” phrased Section 6a to “include 

commerce that . . . was wholly foreign,” Empagran, 542 U.S. at 163, leaving the 

Sherman Act applicable to conduct involving such commerce when it sufficiently affects 

U.S. domestic or import commerce. It has been well-established since Judge Hand’s 

opinion in United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945), that 

“the Sherman Act applies to foreign conduct that was meant to produce and did in fact 

produce some substantial effect in the United States.” Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Cal., 509 

U.S. 764, 796 (1993); see Minn-Chem, 683 F.3d at 855. When enacting the FTAIA, 

Congress was thus fully aware that “America’s antitrust laws, when applied to foreign 

conduct, can interfere with a foreign nation’s ability independently to regulate its own 

commercial affairs,” Empagran, 542 U.S. at 165, but nonetheless determined that 

application of those laws was reasonable when it redressed domestic harm, because of 

the United States’ interest in protecting U.S. consumers from anticompetitive conduct. 

That congressional determination “avoid[s] unreasonable interference with the 

sovereign authority of other nations” because it is consistent with principles of 

prescriptive comity. Id. at 164. While “comity counsel[s] against” applying U.S. antitrust 

laws to foreign conduct causing only foreign injuries, the situation is different “where 

Case: 14-8003 Document: 23-2 Filed: 04/24/2014 Pages: 22 (20 of 27)
12 

that conduct also causes domestic harm.” Id. at 166, 169. Our “courts have long held that 

application of our antitrust laws to foreign anticompetitive conduct is nonetheless 

reasonable, and hence consistent with principles of prescriptive comity, insofar as they 

reflect a legislative effort to redress domestic antitrust injury that foreign 

anticompetitive conduct has caused.” Id. at 165. Indeed, the “extraterritorial application 

of antitrust laws on the basis of the effects doctrine is by now widely accepted” around 

the world. Florian Wagner-von Papp, Competition Law and Extraterritoriality, in 

Research Handbook on International Competition Law 21, 57 (Ariel Ezrachi ed. 2012). 

The panel also was incorrect to suggest that finding the effects on U.S. commerce in 

this case to be “direct” would “enormously increase the global reach of the Sherman 

Act.” Op. 8. It is a “well-established principle that the U.S. antitrust laws reach foreign 

conduct that harms U.S. commerce.” Minn-Chem, 683 F.3d at 858; cf. United States v. 

Nippon Paper Indus. Co., 109 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1997) (“the case law now conclusively 

establishes [that the Sherman Act authorizes antitrust actions] predicated on wholly 

foreign conduct which has an intended and substantial effect in the United States”). 

“When an international cartel has effects both within and without our borders, 

American law applies to at least the domestic effects.” United States v. Leija-Sanchez, 

602 F.3d 797, 801 (7th Cir. 2010). As this Court noted in Minn-Chem, it is important for 

our courts to protect U.S. consumers from foreign price-fixing conspiracies because the 

price fixers’ host countries “often have no incentive” to enforce their antitrust laws 

because they “would logically be pleased to reap economic rents from other countries” 

whose consumers ultimately bear the burden of the inflated prices. 683 F.3d at 860. 

Holding that the effect on U.S. cellphone purchasers is direct would not open U.S. 

courts to damages claims from plaintiffs around the world. Empagran specifically holds 

Case: 14-8003 Document: 23-2 Filed: 04/24/2014 Pages: 22 (21 of 27)
13 

that even if the first prong of the effects exception is satisfied and the government or 

domestic purchasers could bring an antitrust claim, foreign plaintiffs could not recover 

damages for their independently caused foreign harm. See 542 U.S. at 173-75. This is so 

because Section 6a’s effects exception separately requires that the direct effect on U.S. 

commerce gives rise to the plaintiff’s claim. Id. This “independent” requirement (Op. 5) 

“will protect many a foreign defendant.” Minn-Chem, 683 F.3d at 858. 

Indeed, resolving a case on the basis of the second prong of the effects exception—

the “gives rise to” requirement—does not threaten the government’s ability to prevent 

anticompetitive harm like the panel’s holding on the first prong does. The second prong 

is claim-specific and thus tailored to the particular injury for which a particular plaintiff 

seeks redress. For the reasons explained above, the record establishes a “direct” effect 

on U.S. commerce in cellphones causing harm to many U.S. consumers that Congress 

intended to be redressable under the Sherman Act. Whether Motorola’s Category II 

claims are an appropriate means of doing so is a separate question which the panel 

failed to analyze properly. 

II. Whether The Effect On U.S. Commerce Gives Rise To Motorola’s Claims 

Warrants Further Briefing And Argument 

Even if the anticompetitive conduct has a direct, substantial, and reasonably 

foreseeable effect on U.S. domestic, import, or certain export commerce, Section 6a’s 

effects exception applies to a particular plaintiff’s claim only when “such effect gives rise 

to a claim.” 15 U.S.C. § 6a(2). And not any claim will do; it must be “the ‘plaintiff’s claim’ 

or ‘the claim at issue.’” Empagran, 542 U.S. at 174-75. This requires “a direct causal 

relationship, that is, proximate causation,” between the conduct’s effects on U.S. 

commerce and the plaintiff’s injury. Empagran S.A. v. F. Hoffman-LaRoche, Ltd., 417 

Case: 14-8003 Document: 23-2 Filed: 04/24/2014 Pages: 22 (22 of 27)
14 

F.3d 1267, 1271 (D.C. Cir. 2005); accord In re Dynamic Random Access Memory 

Antitrust Litig., 546 F.3d 981, 988 (9th Cir. 2008); In re Monosodium Glutamate 

Antitrust Litig., 477 F.3d 535, 538 (8th Cir. 2007). As a result, the Sherman Act “can 

apply and not apply to the same conduct” depending on the connection of the particular 

plaintiff’s injury to the requisite effect. Empagran, 542 U.S. at 173-74. 

Here, the panel concluded that Motorola’s Category II claims were “upended by” the 

“give[] rise to” requirement. Op. 5. But the panel mistakenly believed that “the effect in 

the United States of the price fixing [in this case] could not give rise to an antitrust 

claim” by anyone for any reason. Op. 6. The panel thus never addressed the pertinent 

question of whether there is a close causal connection between the effect on U.S. 

commerce and Motorola’s injuries. 

While the panel correctly observed that U.S. consumers cannot sue a device 

manufacturer for incorporating a price-fixed component—even if incorporation of that 

component caused the price of the device to increase—and that the manufacturer could 

not sue itself, Op. 6, those observations are beside the point. Regardless of whether U.S. 

consumers can sue the device manufacturer (here, Motorola), they clearly can sue the 

conspirators (here, the LCD makers) at least for injunctive relief “against threatened 

loss or damage.” 15 U.S.C. § 26.2 The government also has ample authority to seek an 

 

2 While Illinois Brick ordinarily bars “indirect purchasers” from recovering “passed-on” 

overcharges from a price-fixing conspiracy, thereby “concentrating full recovery for the 

overcharge in the direct purchasers” and avoiding the “risk of duplicative recoveries,” 431 U.S. at 

728-35, it is an open question whether this bar exists when the Sherman Act does not apply to 

the direct purchasers’ claims because they cannot satisfy the “gives rise to” requirement, 15 

U.S.C. § 6a(2). In that circumstance, it may be that indirect purchasers whose claims do arise 

from the effect on U.S. commerce can recover damages because full recovery cannot be 

concentrated in the direct purchaser and duplicative recoveries are not possible. Cf. U.S. 

Gypsum, 350 F.3d at 627 (Illinois Brick does not apply when “there is no risk of double recovery 

(and no need to calculate elasticities in order to apportion damages among multiple tiers)”). 

Case: 14-8003 Document: 23-2 Filed: 04/24/2014 Pages: 22 (23 of 27)
15 

equitable remedy or criminal punishment for a Sherman Act offense that involves 

wholly foreign conduct that has the requisite effect on U.S. commerce. Empagran, 542 

U.S. at 170-71; cf. Kruman v. Christie’s Int’l PLC, 284 F.3d 384, 398 (2d Cir. 2002) 

(“[T]he Sherman Act contains its own enforcement provision that can be invoked by the 

United States even when no plaintiff has suffered an injury.”), abrogated on other 

grounds by Empagran, 542 U.S. 155. 

Moreover, whether anyone could sue Motorola for an antitrust violation does not 

answer the relevant inquiry of whether Motorola can sue the defendants under the 

Sherman Act. Motorola has alleged that the upstream panel market is “inextricably 

linked and intertwined” with the downstream U.S. cellphone market because the LCD 

panels were “the most expensive and significant component of [its cellphones]” and had 

“no independent utility” apart from the products in which they were incorporated. 07-

1827 N.D. Cal. Dkt. 3173, at 23, 53; cf. Blue Shield of Va. v. McCready, 457 U.S. 465, 

477, 484 (1982) (injury “inextricably intertwined” with antitrust violation established 

“proximate cause” necessary for antitrust standing); Empagran, 542 U.S. at 171 

(distinguishing Industria Siciliana Asfalti, Bitumi, S.p.A. v. Exxon Research & Eng’g 

Co., No. 75 Civ. 5828, 1977 WL 1353 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 1977), in which the foreign injury 

was “inextricably bound up with the domestic restraints of trade”). Neither the panel 

nor the court below addressed whether these allegations would, if proved, establish the 

requisite causal connection between the U.S. effects and Motorola’s injuries. This issue 

warrants briefing and argument. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court should vacate the panel decision and order briefing and argument before 

the panel or en banc court. 

Case: 14-8003 Document: 23-2 Filed: 04/24/2014 Pages: 22 (24 of 27)
16 

Respectfully submitted. 

 /s/ Nickolai G. Levin 

April 24, 2014 

DAVID C. SHONKA

 Acting General Counsel 

JOHN F. DALY 

 Deputy General Counsel for Litigation 

MARK S. HEGEDUS 

Attorney 

Office of the General Counsel 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

WILLIAM J. BAER 

Assistant Attorney General 

BRENT SNYDER 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General

KRISTEN C. LIMARZI 

JAMES J. FREDRICKS 

NICKOLAI G. LEVIN 

Attorneys 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Antitrust Division 

950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 

Room 3224 

Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 

(202) 514-2886 

Case: 14-8003 Document: 23-2 Filed: 04/24/2014 Pages: 22 (25 of 27)
17 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 

This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Rule 32(a)(5) of the Federal 

Rules of Appellate Procedure and the type style requirements of Rule 32(a)(6) because 

this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Office 

Word 2007 with 12-point Georgia font in text and 11-point Georgia font in the footnotes. 

April 24, 2014 /s/ Nickolai G. Levin 

 Nickolai G. Levin 

 

Case: 14-8003 Document: 23-2 Filed: 04/24/2014 Pages: 22 (26 of 27)
18 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Nickolai G. Levin, hereby certify that on April 24, 2014, I electronically filed the 

foregoing Brief for the United States and the Federal Trade Commission as Amici Curiae 

in Support of Panel Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc with the Clerk of the Court of the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit by using the CM/ECF System. 

Once the brief is accepted for filing by the Clerk’s Office, I will send 30 copies to the 

Clerk of the Court by FedEx. 

I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that 

service will be accomplished by the CM/ECF system. 

April 24, 2014 /s/ Nickolai G. Levin 

 Nickolai G. Levin 

 

Case: 14-8003 Document: 23-2 Filed: 04/24/2014 Pages: 22 (27 of 27)