prei
columbia
pictures
argued
november
decided
may
although
petition
government
redress
generally
immune
antitrust
liability
eastern
railroad
presidents
conference
noerr
motor
freight
immunity
withheld
petitioning
activity
ostensibly
directed
toward
influencing
governmental
action
mere
sham
cover
attempt
interfere
directly
competitor
business
relationships
petitioner
resort
hotel
operators
collectively
pre
rented
videodiscs
guests
use
videodisc
players
located
guest
room
sought
develop
market
sale
players
hotels
respondent
major
motion
picture
studios
collectively
columbia
held
copyrights
motion
pictures
recorded
pre
videodiscs
licensed
transmission
motion
pictures
hotel
rooms
sued
pre
alleged
copyright
infringement
pre
counterclaimed
alleging
columbia
copyright
action
mere
sham
cloaked
underlying
acts
monopolization
conspiracy
restrain
trade
violation
sherman
act
district
granted
summary
judgment
pre
copyright
claim
appeals
affirmed
remand
district
granted
columbia
motion
summary
judgment
pre
antitrust
claims
columbia
probable
cause
bring
infringement
action
reasoned
action
sham
entitled
noerr
immunity
district
also
denied
pre
request
discovery
columbia
intent
bringing
action
appeals
affirmed
noting
pre
sole
argument
lawsuit
sham
columbia
honestly
believe
infringement
claim
meritorious
found
existence
probable
cause
precluded
application
sham
exception
matter
law
rendered
irrelevant
evidence
columbia
subjective
intent
bringing
suit
held
litigation
deprived
immunity
sham
unless
objectively
baseless
decisions
establish
legality
objectively
reasonable
petitioning
directed
toward
obtaining
governmental
action
affected
anticompetitive
purpose
actor
may
thus
neither
noerr
immunity
sham
exception
turns
subjective
intent
alone
see
allied
tube
conduit
indian
head
rather
sham
litigation
must
meet
definition
first
lawsuit
must
objectively
baseless
sense
reasonable
litigant
realistically
expect
success
merits
challenged
litigation
objectively
meritless
may
examine
litigant
subjective
motivation
second
part
definition
focus
whether
baseless
suit
conceals
attempt
interfere
directly
competitor
business
relationships
noerr
supra
use
governmental
process
opposed
outcome
process
anticompetitive
weapon
columbia
omni
outdoor
advertising
process
requires
plaintiff
disprove
challenged
lawsuit
legal
viability
entertain
evidence
suit
economic
viability
pp
pre
failed
establish
objective
prong
noerr
sham
exception
summary
judgment
properly
granted
columbia
finding
antitrust
defendant
claiming
noerr
immunity
probable
cause
sue
compels
conclusion
reasonable
litigant
defendant
position
realistically
expect
success
merits
challenged
lawsuit
lower
courts
correctly
found
probable
cause
columbia
suit
since
dispute
predicate
facts
underlying
legal
proceedings
columbia
exclusive
right
show
copyrighted
motion
pictures
publicly
decide
probable
cause
matter
law
reasonably
conclude
columbia
action
objectively
plausible
effort
enforce
rights
since
time
district
entered
summary
judgment
clear
copyright
law
videodisc
rental
activities
since
columbia
might
copyright
suit
two
circuits
since
columbia
entitled
press
novel
claim
even
absence
supporting
authority
similarly
situated
reasonable
litigant
perceived
likelihood
success
pp
appeals
properly
refused
pre
request
discovery
economic
circumstances
underlying
copyright
litigation
matters
rendered
irrelevant
objective
legal
reasonableness
columbia
infringement
suit
pp
thomas
delivered
opinion
rehnquist
white
blackmun
scalia
kennedy
souter
joined
souter
filed
concurring
opinion
post
stevens
filed
opinion
concurring
judgment
joined
post
patrick
coyne
argued
cause
petitioners
briefs
james
loftis
iii
andrew
pincus
argued
cause
respondents
brief
richard
favretto
roy
englert
stephen
kroft
solicitor
general
starr
acting
assistant
attorney
general
james
deputy
solicitor
general
wallace
michael
dreeben
catherine
james
spears
filed
brief
amicus
curiae
urging
affirmance
justice
thomas
delivered
opinion
case
requires
us
define
sham
exception
doctrine
antitrust
immunity
first
identified
eastern
railroad
president
conference
noerr
motor
freight
doctrine
applies
litigation
context
sham
exception
activity
ostensibly
directed
toward
influencing
governmental
action
qualify
noerr
immunity
mere
sham
cover
attempt
interfere
directly
business
relationships
competitor
hold
litigation
deprived
immunity
sham
unless
litigation
objectively
baseless
appeals
ninth
circuit
refused
characterize
sham
lawsuit
antitrust
defendant
admittedly
probable
cause
institute
affirm
petitioners
professional
real
estate
investors
kenneth
irwin
collectively
pre
operated
la
mancha
private
club
villas
resort
hotel
palm
springs
california
installed
videodisc
players
resort
hotel
rooms
assembled
library
motion
picture
titles
pre
rented
videodiscs
guests
viewing
pre
also
sought
develop
market
sale
videodisc
players
hotels
wishing
offer
viewing
prerecorded
material
respondents
columbia
pictures
industries
seven
major
motion
picture
studios
collectively
columbia
held
copyrights
motion
pictures
recorded
videodiscs
pre
purchased
columbia
also
licensed
transmission
copyrighted
motion
pictures
hotel
rooms
wired
cable
system
called
spectradyne
pre
therefore
competed
columbia
viewing
market
la
mancha
also
broader
market
entertainment
services
hotels
columbia
sued
pre
alleged
copyright
infringement
rental
videodiscs
viewing
hotel
rooms
pre
counterclaimed
charging
columbia
violations
sherman
act
stat
amended
various
state
law
infractions
particular
pre
alleged
columbia
copyright
action
mere
sham
cloaked
underlying
acts
monopolization
conspiracy
restrain
trade
parties
filed
summary
judgment
columbia
copyright
claim
postponed
discovery
pre
antitrust
counterclaims
columbia
dispute
pre
freely
sell
lease
lawfully
purchased
videodiscs
copyright
act
first
sale
doctrine
see
pre
conceded
playing
videodiscs
constituted
performance
motion
pictures
see
ed
supp
iii
result
summary
judgment
depended
solely
whether
rental
videodiscs
viewing
infringed
columbia
exclusive
right
perform
copyrighted
work
publicly
ruling
rental
constitute
public
performance
district
entered
summary
judgment
pre
uspq
wl
cd
cal
appeals
affirmed
grounds
hotel
room
public
place
pre
transmit
otherwise
communicate
columbia
motion
pictures
see
ed
supp
iii
remand
columbia
sought
summary
judgment
pre
antitrust
claims
arguing
original
copyright
infringement
action
sham
therefore
entitled
immunity
eastern
railroad
presidents
conference
noerr
motor
freight
supra
reasoning
infringement
action
clearly
legitimate
effort
therefore
sham
trade
cases
wl
cd
cal
district
granted
motion
clear
manner
case
presented
columbia
seeking
expecting
favorable
judgment
although
decided
columbia
case
far
easy
resolve
evident
opinion
affirming
order
appeals
trouble
well
find
probable
cause
bringing
action
regardless
whether
issue
considered
question
fact
law
appeals
affirmed
rejecting
pre
allegations
anticompetitive
conduct
see
focused
pre
contention
copyright
action
indeed
sham
columbia
claim
noerr
immunity
appeals
characterized
sham
litigation
one
two
types
abuse
judicial
processes
either
misrepresentations
adjudicatory
process
pursuit
pattern
baseless
repetitive
claims
instituted
without
probable
cause
regardless
merits
quoting
california
motor
transport
trucking
unlimited
pre
neither
allege
copyright
lawsuit
involved
misrepresentations
challenge
district
finding
infringement
action
brought
probable
cause
suit
baseless
rather
pre
opposed
summary
judgment
solely
arguing
copyright
infringement
lawsuit
sham
columbia
honestly
believe
infringement
claim
meritorious
ibid
appeals
rejected
pre
contention
subjective
intent
bringing
suit
question
fact
precluding
entry
summary
judgment
ibid
instead
reasoned
existence
probable
cause
preclude
application
sham
exception
matter
law
suit
brought
probable
cause
fall
within
sham
exception
doctrine
finally
observed
pre
failure
show
copyright
infringement
action
baseless
rendered
irrelevant
evidence
columbia
subjective
intent
accordingly
rejected
pre
request
discovery
columbia
intent
courts
appeals
defined
sham
inconsistent
contradictory
ways
observed
sham
might
become
label
courts
apply
activity
deem
unworthy
antitrust
immunity
allied
tube
conduit
indian
head
array
definitions
adopted
lower
courts
demonstrates
observation
prescient
ii
pre
contends
ninth
circuit
erred
holding
antitrust
plaintiff
must
threshold
prerequisite
establish
sham
lawsuit
baseless
matter
law
brief
petitioners
invites
us
adopt
approach
either
indifference
outcome
failure
prove
petition
redress
grievances
brought
predatory
motive
tr
oral
arg
expose
defendant
antitrust
liability
sham
exception
decline
pre
invitation
petition
government
redress
generally
immune
antitrust
liability
first
recognized
eastern
railroad
presidents
conference
noerr
motor
freight
sherman
act
prohibit
persons
associating
together
attempt
persuade
legislature
executive
take
particular
action
respect
law
produce
restraint
monopoly
accord
mine
workers
pennington
light
government
power
act
representative
capacity
take
actions
operate
restrain
trade
reasoned
sherman
act
punish
political
activity
people
freely
inform
government
wishes
noerr
impute
congress
intent
invade
first
amendment
right
petition
noerr
however
withheld
immunity
sham
activities
application
sherman
act
justified
petitioning
activity
ostensibly
directed
toward
influencing
governmental
action
mere
sham
cover
attempt
interfere
directly
business
relationships
competitor
noerr
found
publicity
campaign
railroads
seeking
legislation
harmful
truckers
sham
effort
influence
legislation
genuine
also
highly
successful
ibid
california
motor
transport
trucking
unlimited
elaborated
noerr
two
relevant
respects
first
extended
noerr
approach
citizens
administrative
agencies
courts
second
held
complaint
showed
sham
entitled
immunity
contained
allegations
one
group
highway
carriers
sought
bar
competitors
meaningful
access
adjudicatory
tribunals
usurp
decisionmaking
process
institut
ing
proceedings
actions
without
probable
cause
regardless
merits
cases
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
left
unresolved
question
presented
case
whether
litigation
may
sham
merely
subjective
expectation
success
motivate
litigant
answer
question
negative
hold
objectively
reasonable
effort
litigate
sham
regardless
subjective
intent
original
formulation
antitrust
petitioning
immunity
required
unprotected
activity
lack
objective
reasonableness
noerr
rejected
contention
attempt
influence
passage
enforcement
laws
might
lose
immunity
merely
lobbyists
sole
purpose
destroy
competitors
persuaded
showing
publicity
campaign
intended
fact
injure
competitors
relationships
public
customers
since
direct
injury
merely
incidental
effect
campaign
influence
governmental
action
reasoned
right
people
inform
representatives
government
desires
respect
passage
enforcement
laws
properly
made
depend
upon
intent
short
noerr
shields
sherman
act
concerted
effort
influence
public
officials
regardless
intent
purpose
pennington
nothing
california
motor
transport
retreated
principles
indeed
recognized
recourse
agencies
courts
condemned
sham
reviewing
discern
ed
draw
difficult
line
separating
objectively
reasonable
claims
pattern
baseless
repetitive
claims
leads
factfinder
conclude
administrative
judicial
processes
abused
recognition
sham
case
signifies
institution
legal
proceedings
without
probable
cause
give
rise
sham
activity
effectively
bar
competitors
meaningful
access
adjudicatory
tribunals
usurp
th
decisionmaking
process
since
california
motor
transport
consistently
assumed
sham
exception
contains
indispensable
objective
component
described
sham
evidenced
repetitive
lawsuits
carrying
hallmark
insubstantial
claims
otter
tail
power
emphasis
added
regard
sham
private
action
genuinely
aimed
procuring
favorable
government
action
opposed
valid
effort
influence
government
action
allied
tube
conduit
indian
head
explicitly
observed
successful
effort
influence
governmental
action
certainly
characterized
sham
see
also
vendo
blackmun
concurring
result
describing
successful
lawsuit
genuine
attemp
use
adjudicative
process
legitimately
rather
pattern
baseless
repetitive
claims
whether
applying
noerr
antitrust
doctrine
invoking
contexts
repeatedly
reaffirmed
evidence
anticompetitive
intent
purpose
alone
transform
otherwise
legitimate
activity
sham
see
ftc
superior
trial
lawyers
naacp
claiborne
hardware
cf
vendo
supra
plurality
opinion
rehnquist
blackmun
concurring
result
indeed
analogy
noerr
sham
exception
held
even
improperly
motivated
lawsuit
may
enjoined
national
labor
relations
act
unfair
labor
practice
unless
litigation
baseless
bill
johnson
restaurants
nlrb
decisions
therefore
establish
legality
objectively
reasonable
petitioning
directed
toward
obtaining
governmental
action
affected
anticompetitive
purpose
actor
may
noerr
quoted
pennington
supra
recent
applications
noerr
immunity
demonstrate
neither
noerr
immunity
sham
exception
turns
subjective
intent
alone
allied
tube
supra
ftc
trial
lawyers
supra
refused
let
antitrust
defendants
immunize
otherwise
unlawful
restraints
trade
pleading
subjective
intent
seek
favorable
legislation
influence
governmental
action
cf
national
collegiate
athletic
assn
board
regents
univ
ood
motives
validate
otherwise
anticompetitive
practice
columbia
omni
outdoor
advertising
similarly
held
challenges
allegedly
sham
petitioning
activity
must
resolved
according
objective
criteria
dispelled
notion
antitrust
plaintiff
prove
sham
merely
showing
competitor
purposes
delay
plaintiff
entry
market
even
deny
meaningful
access
appropriate
administrative
legislative
fora
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
reasoned
inimical
intent
may
render
manner
lobbying
improper
even
unlawful
necessarily
render
sham
ibid
accord
stevens
dissenting
sum
fidelity
precedent
compels
us
reject
purely
subjective
definition
sham
sham
exception
construed
undermine
vitiate
noerr
despite
whatever
superficial
certainty
might
provide
subjective
standard
utterly
fail
supply
real
intelligible
guidance
allied
tube
supra
iii
outline
definition
sham
litigation
first
lawsuit
must
objectively
baseless
sense
reasonable
litigant
realistically
expect
success
merits
objective
litigant
conclude
suit
reasonably
calculated
elicit
favorable
outcome
suit
immunized
noerr
antitrust
claim
premised
sham
exception
must
fail
challenged
litigation
objectively
meritless
may
examine
litigant
subjective
motivation
second
part
definition
sham
focus
whether
baseless
lawsuit
conceals
attempt
interfere
directly
business
relationships
competitor
noerr
supra
emphasis
added
use
governmental
process
opposed
outcome
process
anticompetitive
weapon
omni
emphasis
original
process
requires
plaintiff
disprove
challenged
lawsuit
legal
viability
entertain
evidence
suit
economic
viability
course
even
plaintiff
defeats
defendant
claim
noerr
immunity
demonstrating
objective
subjective
components
sham
must
still
prove
substantive
antitrust
violation
proof
sham
merely
deprives
defendant
immunity
relieve
plaintiff
obligation
establish
elements
claim
apparent
confusion
meaning
sham
may
stem
use
word
genuine
denote
opposite
sham
see
omni
supra
allied
tube
noerr
supra
vendo
supra
blackmun
concurring
result
word
genuine
objective
subjective
connotations
one
hand
genuine
means
actually
reputed
apparent
qualities
character
webster
third
new
international
dictionary
genuine
sense
governs
federal
rule
civil
procedure
genuine
issue
one
properly
resolved
finder
fact
may
reasonably
resolved
favor
either
party
anderson
liberty
lobby
emphasis
added
hand
genuine
also
means
sincerely
honestly
felt
experienced
webster
dictionary
supra
sham
therefore
litigation
must
fail
genuine
senses
word
iv
conclude
appeals
properly
affirmed
summary
judgment
columbia
pre
antitrust
counterclaim
objective
prong
sham
exception
appeals
correctly
held
sham
litigation
must
constitute
pursuit
claims
baseless
reasonable
litigant
realistically
expect
secure
favorable
relief
see
existence
probable
cause
institute
legal
proceedings
precludes
finding
antitrust
defendant
engaged
sham
litigation
notion
probable
cause
understood
applied
tort
wrongful
civil
proceedings
requires
plaintiff
prove
defendant
lacked
probable
cause
institute
unsuccessful
civil
lawsuit
defendant
pressed
action
improper
malicious
purpose
stewart
sonneborn
wyatt
cole
rehnquist
dissenting
cooley
law
torts
cf
wheeler
nesbitt
related
tort
malicious
prosecution
criminal
charges
probable
cause
institute
civil
proceedings
requires
reasonabl
belie
chance
claim
may
held
valid
upon
adjudication
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
hubbard
beatty
hyde
mass
restatement
second
torts
comment
pp
absence
probable
cause
essential
element
tort
existence
probable
cause
absolute
defense
see
crescent
city
live
stock
butcher
union
wheeler
supra
liberty
loan
gadden
mizell
evidence
anticompetitive
intent
affect
objective
prong
noerr
sham
exception
showing
malice
alone
neither
entitle
wrongful
civil
proceedings
plaintiff
prevail
permit
factfinder
infer
absence
probable
cause
stewart
supra
wheeler
supra
addison
law
torts
pp
cooley
supra
found
antitrust
defendant
claiming
noerr
immunity
probable
cause
sue
finding
compels
conclusion
reasonable
litigant
defendant
position
realistically
expect
success
merits
challenged
lawsuit
decision
today
therefore
proper
probable
cause
determination
irrefutably
demonstrates
antitrust
plaintiff
proved
objective
prong
sham
exception
defendant
accordingly
entitled
noerr
immunity
district
appeals
correctly
found
columbia
probable
cause
sue
pre
copyright
infringement
dispute
predicate
facts
underlying
legal
proceeding
may
decide
probable
cause
matter
law
crescent
supra
stewart
supra
nelson
miller
stone
crocker
mass
bishop
commentaries
law
see
also
director
general
railroads
kastenbaum
question
whether
defendant
thought
facts
constitute
probable
cause
whether
thinks
columbia
enjoyed
exclusive
righ
perform
copyrighted
motion
pictures
publicly
regardless
whether
intended
monopolistic
predatory
use
columbia
acquired
statutory
right
motion
pictures
original
audiovisual
works
authorship
fixed
tangible
medium
expression
indeed
condition
copyright
upon
demonstrated
lack
anticompetitive
intent
upset
notion
copyright
limited
grant
monopoly
privileges
intended
simultaneously
motivate
creative
activity
authors
give
public
appropriate
access
work
product
sony
america
universal
city
studios
district
entered
summary
judgment
pre
columbia
copyright
claim
means
clear
whether
pre
videodisc
rental
activities
intruded
columbia
copyrights
time
third
circuit
district
within
third
circuit
held
rental
video
cassettes
viewing
private
screening
rooms
infringed
copyright
owner
right
public
performance
columbia
pictures
industries
redd
horne
columbia
pictures
industries
aveco
md
aff
although
district
ninth
circuit
distinguished
decisions
reasoning
hotel
rooms
offered
degree
privacy
akin
home
video
rental
store
see
uspq
copyright
scholars
criticized
reasoning
outcome
ninth
circuit
decision
see
goldstein
copyright
principles
law
practice
pp
nimmer
nimmer
nimmer
copyright
pp
seventh
circuit
expressly
decline
follow
ninth
circuit
adopted
instead
third
circuit
definition
public
place
video
views
studio
cert
denied
light
unsettled
condition
law
columbia
plainly
probable
cause
sue
reasonable
copyright
owner
columbia
position
believed
chance
winning
infringement
suit
pre
even
though
survive
pre
motion
summary
judgment
columbia
copyright
action
arguably
warranted
existing
law
least
based
objectively
good
faith
argument
extension
modification
reversal
existing
law
time
ninth
circuit
reviewed
claims
litigation
became
apparent
columbia
might
copyright
suit
either
third
seventh
circuit
even
absence
supporting
authority
columbia
entitled
press
novel
copyright
claim
long
similarly
situated
reasonable
litigant
perceived
likelihood
success
reasonably
conclude
columbia
infringement
action
objectively
plausible
effort
enforce
rights
accordingly
conclude
pre
failed
establish
objective
prong
noerr
sham
exception
finally
appeals
properly
refused
pre
request
discovery
economic
circumstances
underlying
copyright
litigation
held
pre
pierce
columbia
noerr
immunity
without
proof
columbia
infringement
action
objectively
baseless
frivolous
thus
district
occasion
inquire
whether
columbia
indifferent
outcome
merits
copyright
suit
whether
damages
infringement
low
justify
columbia
investment
suit
whether
columbia
decided
sue
primarily
benefit
collateral
injuries
inflicted
use
legal
process
contra
illinois
tool
works
cert
denied
matters
concern
columbia
economic
motivations
bringing
suit
rendered
irrelevant
objective
legal
reasonableness
litigation
existence
probable
cause
eliminated
genuine
issue
material
fact
summary
judgment
properly
issued
affirm
judgment
appeals
ordered
footnotes
appeals
held
columbia
alleged
refusal
grant
copyright
licenses
separate
distinct
prosecution
infringement
suit
also
held
pre
failed
establish
suffered
antitrust
injury
columbia
allegedly
anticompetitive
acts
thus
whatever
antitrust
injury
columbia
inflicted
must
stemmed
attempted
enforcement
copyrights
consider
whether
columbia
made
valid
claim
immunity
anticompetitive
conduct
independent
petitioning
activity
cf
continental
ore
union
carbide
carbon
several
courts
appeals
demand
alleged
sham
proved
legally
unreasonable
see
mcguire
oil
mapco
litton
systems
american
telephone
telegraph
cert
denied
sundstrand
federal
prescription
service
american
pharmaceutical
app
cert
denied
still
courts
held
successful
litigation
definition
sham
see
eden
hannon
sumitomo
trust
banking
cert
denied
south
dakota
kansas
city
southern
industries
cert
denied
sub
nom
south
dakota
kansas
city
southern
columbia
pictures
industries
redd
horne
courts
appeals
regard
meritorious
litigation
sham
sixth
circuit
treats
genuine
legal
substance
raising
merely
rebuttable
presumption
immunity
westmac
smith
emphasis
added
cert
denied
seventh
circuit
denies
immunity
pursuit
valid
claims
stakes
discounted
probability
winning
low
repay
investment
litigation
illinois
tool
works
cert
denied
finally
fifth
circuit
success
merits
preclude
proof
sham
litigation
significantly
motivated
genuine
desire
judicial
relief
burlington
northern
cert
denied
sub
nom
union
pacific
energy
transportation
systems
california
motor
transport
refer
antitrust
defendants
purpose
deprive
competitors
meaningful
access
courts
see
also
noting
purpose
eliminate
competitor
denying
free
meaningful
access
agencies
courts
stewart
concurring
judgment
agreeing
antitrust
laws
punish
acts
intended
discourage
ultimately
prevent
competitor
invoking
administrative
judicial
process
sham
depends
existence
anticompetitive
intent
however
transform
sham
inquiry
purely
subjective
investigation
winning
lawsuit
definition
reasonable
effort
petitioning
redress
therefore
sham
hand
antitrust
defendant
lost
underlying
litigation
must
resist
understandable
temptation
engage
post
hoc
reasoning
concluding
ultimately
unsuccessful
action
must
unreasonable
without
foundation
christiansburg
garment
eeoc
accord
hughes
rowe
per
curiam
must
remember
ven
law
facts
appear
questionable
unfavorable
outset
party
may
entirely
reasonable
ground
bringing
suit
christiansburg
supra
surveying
forms
illegal
reprehensible
practice
may
corrupt
administrative
judicial
processes
may
result
antitrust
violations
noted
unethical
conduct
setting
adjudicatory
process
often
results
sanctions
isrepresentations
condoned
political
arena
immunized
used
adjudicatory
process
california
motor
transport
need
decide
whether
extent
noerr
permits
imposition
antitrust
liability
litigant
fraud
misrepresentations
cf
allowing
federal
relieve
party
final
judgment
fraud
misrepresentation
misconduct
adverse
party
walker
process
equipment
food
machinery
chemical
harlan
concurring
tort
frequently
called
malicious
prosecution
strictly
speaking
governs
malicious
pursuit
criminal
proceedings
without
probable
cause
see
keeton
dobbs
keeton
owen
prosser
keeton
torts
ed
threshold
showing
probable
cause
higher
civil
context
criminal
see
restatement
second
torts
comment
pp
justice
souter
concurring
holds
today
person
incur
antitrust
liability
merely
bringing
lawsuit
long
suit
objectively
baseless
sense
reasonable
litigant
realistically
expect
success
merits
ante
assumes
district
appeals
finding
test
satisfied
concluded
columbia
suit
pre
copyright
infringement
supported
probable
cause
standard
explains
case
requires
reasonabl
belie
chance
claim
may
held
valid
upon
adjudication
ante
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
agree
term
defined
rightly
read
expressing
test
announces
today
expectation
reasonable
litigant
dubbed
reasonable
belief
realistic
expectation
success
merits
paraphrased
chance
held
valid
upon
adjudication
established
identity
meaning
however
proceeds
discuss
particular
facts
case
terms
formulation
objective
baselessness
terms
probable
cause
point
understandable
appeals
used
term
probable
cause
represent
objective
reasonableness
seems
natural
use
term
reviewing
conclusions
yet
acknowledges
ante
since
dispute
facts
underlying
suit
issue
question
whether
suit
objectively
baseless
purely
one
law
obliged
consider
de
novo
therefore
need
frame
question
appeals
terms
accordingly
prefer
put
question
terms
conclude
simply
undisputed
facts
law
stood
columbia
filed
suit
reasonable
litigant
realistically
expected
success
merits
preference
stems
concern
courts
read
today
opinion
transplanting
every
substantive
nuance
procedural
quirk
common
law
tort
wrongful
civil
proceedings
federal
antitrust
law
understand
mean
anything
sort
however
understand
citation
rule
federal
rules
civil
procedure
see
ante
signal
importation
every
jot
tittle
law
attorney
sanctions
rather
take
use
term
probable
cause
merely
shorthand
reasonable
litigant
realistic
expectation
success
merits
understanding
join
opinion
justice
stevens
justice
joins
concurring
judgment
agree
disposition
case
holding
objectively
reasonable
effort
litigate
sham
regardless
subjective
intent
ante
write
separately
disassociate
unnecessarily
broad
dicta
opinion
specifically
disagree
equation
objectively
baseless
answer
question
whether
reasonable
litigant
realistically
expect
success
merits
might
well
lawsuits
fit
latter
definition
shown
objectively
unreasonable
thus
shams
might
objectively
reasonable
bring
lawsuit
form
success
merits
matter
insignificant
expected
possibility
mind
avoid
unnecessarily
broad
holding
might
regret
confronted
complicated
case
recently
explained
sham
use
governmental
process
opposed
outcome
process
anticompetitive
weapon
columbia
omni
outdoor
advertising
distinction
abusing
judicial
process
restrain
competition
prosecuting
lawsuit
successful
restrain
competition
must
guide
decision
whether
particular
filing
series
filings
sham
label
sham
appropriately
applied
case
series
cases
plaintiff
indifferent
outcome
litigation
nevertheless
sought
impose
collateral
harm
defendant
example
impairing
credit
abusing
discovery
process
interfering
access
governmental
agencies
might
also
apply
plaintiff
reason
expect
success
merits
tremendous
cost
bother
achieve
result
without
benefit
collateral
injuries
imposed
competitor
legal
process
alone
litigation
filed
pursued
collateral
purposes
fundamentally
different
case
relief
sought
litigation
give
plaintiff
competitive
advantage
perhaps
exclude
potential
competitor
entering
market
product
either
infringes
plaintiff
patent
copyright
violates
exclusive
franchise
granted
governmental
body
case
us
today
latter
obviously
legitimate
category
unethical
improper
use
judicial
system
instead
respondents
invoked
federal
jurisdiction
determine
whether
lawfully
restrain
competition
petitioners
relief
sought
original
action
granted
anticompetitive
consequences
authorized
federal
copyright
law
given
original
copyright
infringement
action
objectively
reasonable
district
appeals
agree
neither
respondents
measure
chances
success
alleged
goal
harming
petitioners
provides
sufficient
basis
treating
sham
may
presume
every
litigant
intends
harm
adversary
moreover
uncertainty
possible
resolution
unsettled
questions
law
characteristic
adversary
process
access
courts
far
precious
right
us
infer
wrongdoing
nothing
using
judicial
process
seek
competitive
advantage
doubtful
case
thus
disposition
case
unquestionably
correct
persuaded
however
virtually
courts
appeals
reviewed
similar
claims
involving
single
action
seeking
enforce
property
right
reached
conclusion
unnecessary
degree
therefore
set
straw
man
justify
elaboration
test
describing
potential
shams
cases
cited
evidence
widespread
confusion
scope
sham
exception
doctrine
eastern
railroad
presidents
conference
noerr
motor
freight
mine
workers
pennington
see
ante
share
three
important
characteristics
case
alleged
injury
competition
defined
prayer
relief
antitrust
defendant
original
action
unethical
conduct
collateral
harm
external
litigation
result
reached
litigation
series
repetitive
claims
courts
concluded
today
allegations
subjective
anticompetitive
motivation
make
otherwise
reasonable
lawsuit
sham
five
cases
cited
plaintiff
alleged
antitrust
violations
extensive
filing
single
anticompetitive
lawsuit
three
cases
core
alleged
antitrust
violation
lay
act
petitioning
government
relief
one
involved
repetitive
filing
baseless
administrative
claims
another
involved
extensive
evidence
anticompetitive
motivation
behind
lawsuit
followed
elaborate
unsuccessful
lobbying
effort
third
collateral
lawsuit
one
many
ways
antitrust
defendant
allegedly
tried
put
plaintiff
business
cases
showed
appropriate
deference
opinions
noerr
pennington
held
act
petitioning
government
usually
form
lobbying
deserves
especially
broad
protection
antitrust
liability
point
nothing
three
opinions
require
different
result
two
remaining
cases
courts
appeals
state
successful
lawsuit
sham
involve
lobbying
contain
much
broader
complicated
allegations
petitioners
presented
like
three
opinions
described
decisions
expected
offer
guidance
blamed
spawning
confusion
case
alleging
filing
single
lawsuit
violated
sherman
act
even
complicated
cases
example
alleged
competitive
injury
involved
something
threat
adverse
outcome
single
lawsuit
produced
less
definite
rules
repetitive
filings
successful
unsuccessful
may
support
inference
process
misused
california
motor
transport
trucking
unlimited
case
rule
single
meritorious
action
never
constitute
sham
dispositive
moreover
simple
rule
may
hard
apply
evidence
judicial
process
used
part
larger
program
control
market
interfere
potential
competitor
financing
without
interest
outcome
lawsuit
see
otter
tail
power
westmac
smith
merritt
dissenting
complex
cases
courts
required
sophisticated
analysis
one
going
beyond
mere
evaluation
merits
single
claim
one
case
judge
posner
made
following
observations
subtle
distinction
suing
competitor
get
damages
filing
lawsuit
hope
expense
burden
defending
make
defendant
abandon
competitive
behavior
prepared
rule
difficulty
distinguishing
lawful
unlawful
purpose
litigation
competitors
acute
litigation
never
considered
actionable
restraint
trade
provided
though
perhaps
threadbare
basis
law
many
claims
wholly
groundless
never
sued
sake
stakes
discounted
probability
winning
low
repay
investment
litigation
suppose
monopolist
brought
tort
action
single
tiny
competitor
action
colorable
basis
law
fact
monopolist
never
brought
suit
chances
winning
damages
hope
get
win
small
compared
spend
litigation
except
wanted
use
pretrial
discovery
discover
competitor
trade
secrets
hoped
competitor
required
make
public
disclosure
potential
liability
suit
disclosure
increase
interest
rate
competitor
pay
bank
financing
wanted
impose
heavy
legal
costs
competitor
hope
deterring
entry
firms
examples
plaintiff
wants
hurt
competitor
getting
judgment
proper
objective
maintenance
suit
regardless
outcome
see
city
gainesville
florida
power
light
students
antitrust
law
regard
examples
anticompetitive
litigation
fanciful
evidentiary
problems
disentangling
real
professed
motives
acute
concern
evidentiary
problems
may
explain
courts
hold
single
lawsuit
provide
basis
antitrust
claim
see
fischel
antitrust
liability
attempts
influence
government
action
basis
limits
doctrine
issue
need
face
since
three
improper
lawsuits
alleged
make
difference
still
think
premature
hold
litigation
unless
malicious
tort
sense
never
actionable
antitrust
laws
existence
tort
abuse
process
shows
long
thought
litigation
used
improper
purposes
even
probable
cause
litigation
improper
purpose
use
litigation
tool
suppressing
competition
antitrust
sense
see
products
liability
ins
agency
crum
forster
ins
cir
becomes
matter
antitrust
concern
say
litigation
actionable
antitrust
laws
merely
plaintiff
trying
get
monopoly
entitled
pursue
goal
lawful
means
including
litigation
competitors
line
crossed
purpose
win
favorable
judgment
competitor
harass
deter
others
process
regardless
outcome
litigating
difficulty
determining
true
purpose
great
many
areas
antitrust
law
illinois
tool
works
sum
case
agree
explanation
respondents
copyright
infringement
action
objectively
baseless
allegations
improper
subjective
motivation
make
lawsuit
sham
however
use
easy
case
vehicle
announcing
rule
may
govern
decision
difficult
cases
may
involve
abuse
judicial
process
accordingly
concur
judgment
opinion
ante
see
also
ante
ham
litigation
must
constitute
pursuit
claims
baseless
reasonable
litigant
realistically
expect
secure
favorable
relief
ante
objective
litigant
conclude
suit
reasonably
calculated
elicit
favorable
outcome
suit
immunized
noerr
see
ante
existence
probable
cause
institute
legal
proceedings
precludes
finding
antitrust
defendant
engaged
sham
litigation
see
ante
columbia
copyright
action
arguably
warranted
existing
law
standards
federal
rule
civil
procedure
varied
restatements
new
test
make
unclear
whether
willing
affirm
appeals
standards
individually
together
recent
decision
farrar
hobby
makes
wonder
whether
years
litigation
two
trips
appeals
recover
one
dollar
one
defendant
id
concurring
qualify
reasonable
expectation
favorable
relief
today
opinion
omni
resource
development
conoco
kennedy
see
mcguire
oil
mapco
unsuccessful
action
enjoin
alleged
violations
alabama
motor
fuel
marketing
act
sham
sundstrand
unsuccessful
action
alleging
misappropriation
trade
secrets
sham
eden
hannon
sumitomo
trust
banking
successful
action
imposing
constructive
trust
profits
derived
breach
nondisclosure
agreement
sham
columbia
pictures
industries
redd
horne
successful
copyright
infringement
sham
south
dakota
kansas
city
southern
industries
successful
action
enjoin
breach
contract
sham
careful
point
however
success
categorically
preclude
finding
sham
litton
systems
american
telephone
telegraph
cert
denied
second
circuit
found
continued
filing
administrative
tariffs
long
claims
become
objectively
unreasonable
supported
jury
sham
finding
anticompetitive
actions
fact
far
removed
act
petitioning
government
relief
chief
judge
oakes
judge
meskill
also
held
reliance
continental
ore
union
carbide
carbon
cantor
detroit
edison
plurality
opinion
tariff
filings
federal
communications
commission
acts
private
commercial
activity
marketplace
rather
requests
governmental
action
thus
even
arguably
protected
doctrine
litton
systems
westmac
smith
cert
denied
although
sixth
circuit
hold
genuine
substance
anticompetitive
lawsuit
creates
rebuttable
presumption
objective
reasonableness
given
facts
case
antitrust
plaintiff
presented
strong
evidence
defendants
lawsuit
followed
long
unsuccessful
lobbying
effort
motivated
solely
anticompetitive
harm
judicial
process
inflict
modest
reservation
probably
wise
evidence
anticompetitive
animus
westmac
fact
great
chief
judge
merritt
thought
plaintiff
successfully
rebutted
presumptive
reasonableness
defendants
lawsuit
delay
defendants
combined
lobbying
litigation
attack
allegedly
sent
plaintiff
bankruptcy
memos
one
defendant
attorney
stated
lobbying
activity
succeed
start
lawsuit
bonds
wo
sell
statement
repeated
codefendant
nothing
else
delay
sale
bonds
merritt
dissenting
emphasis
omitted
event
sixth
circuit
rule
extent
apply
case
simple
one
result
conclusion
reach
federal
prescription
service
american
pharmaceutical
app
cert
denied
case
antitrust
plaintiff
alleged
long
conspiracy
lobby
boycott
sue
state
licensing
boards
state
legislatures
marketplace
state
federal
courts
existence
spite
allegations
appeals
found
defendant
actions
primarily
consisted
lobbying
abolition
plaintiff
mail
order
prescription
business
immune
illinois
tool
works
posner
cert
denied
antitrust
defendant
alleged
violations
several
provisions
sherman
claytoyton
acts
included
much
filing
single
lawsuit
encompassed
broad
scheme
monopolizing
entire
relevant
market
purchasing
patents
threatening
file
many
patently
groundless
lawsuits
acquiring
competitor
dividing
markets
filing
fraudulent
patent
application
burlington
northern
cert
denied
plaintiffs
alleged
produced
evidence
support
theory
defendant
filed
suit
solely
cause
delay
crippling
expense
defendants
either
brought
unsuccessfully
defended
succession
related
lawsuits
involving
petitioners
right
compete
cases
courts
appeals
ably
attempted
balance
strict
enforcement
antitrust
laws
possible
abuses
judicial
process
permitted
reliance
subjective
motivation
even
done
cases
alleging
abuse
judicial
process
see
california
motor
transport
trucking
unlimited
neither
surprising
relevant
case
involving
allegations
dr
miles
medical
john
park
sons
schwegmann
brothers
calvert
distillers
timken
roller
bearing
farbenfabriken
bayer
sterling
drug
international
salt
shoe
machinery