R. Brendan Fee

Chambers has identified Brendan as a top antitrust practitioner and describes him as a “very practical, easy-to-work with” lawyer who is “exceptionally smart” and provides clients with “very clear communication” on complex antitrust issues. Legal 500 has recognized Brendan for his work in civil antitrust litigation, noting that he “is a real star in the making” who “just gets it” when it comes to navigating complicated antitrust questions. In addition, Brendan repeatedly has been named Benchmark Litigation’s 40 & Under “Hot List” and has been included on the Law360 Rising Stars list as one of the top five antitrust lawyers in the US and Europe under the age of 40.

Brendan has obtained dismissals and favorable settlements in class action and single-plaintiff cases involving alleged price fixing, exclusive dealing, monopolization, group boycotts, price discrimination, tying, bundling, and violations of state antitrust law. His clients in these cases are some of the top companies in a number of diverse industries such as pharmaceuticals, technology, healthcare, retail/e-commerce, automotive, energy, and industrial products.

Brendan has written articles on vertical restraints and pricing, as well as antitrust issues in the life sciences industry. He also speaks on cutting-edge competition issues such as vertical restraints in e-commerce.

As an adjunct professor of law at Rutgers Law School, Brendan teaches courses on topics such as legal writing and appellate advocacy. He is the litigation practice training partner for Morgan Lewis’s Philadelphia, Princeton, and Wilmington offices. He also participates in the firm’s Class Action Working Group.

Brendan's representative antitrust litigation and distribution successes include:

• Helicopter Helmet Corp. v. Gentex Corp. (D. Del.) – Obtained with prejudice dismissal of Section 1 and Section 2 claims arising out of alleged exclusionary conduct in head wear protection market, which was affirmed by the Third Circuit on appeal.
• Cable Line v. Comcast (M.D. Pa.) – Obtained dismissal on a Rule 12 motion of allegations of conspiracy to restrain trade in alleged cable installation market, which the Third Circuit later affirmed.    
• In re North Sea Brent Crude Oil Futures Litigation (S.D.N.Y.) – Obtained dismissal of Section 1 and 2 Sherman Act claims arising out of alleged manipulation of benchmark for North Sea Brent Crude Oil, which was affirmed on appeal by the Second Circuit.    
• Allen v. Verizon (D.N.J.) – Obtained dismissal of federal antitrust claims by a putative class of cell phone purchasers alleging collusion with respect to ESIM standards.
• Medical Diagnostic Labs v. Independence Blue Cross (E.D. Pa.) – Secured dismissal of exclusive dealing antitrust claims concerning certain diagnostic tests on a motion to dismiss.    
• Prescient Medicine Holdings v. Amerihealth Caritas (D. Del.) – Secured Rule 12 dismissal of exclusive dealing claims pertaining to laboratory testing services.
• Les Bijoux v. Richemont North America (M.D. Fla.) – Obtained stay of Florida Franchise Act claims against supplier of luxury watches and jewelry in favor of arbitration in Switzerland and New York.
• Torrey v. Cigna Corporation (E.D. Texas) – Secured favorable settlement of federal antitrust and RICO claims against Cigna alleging collusion among health insurers with respect to treatment standards regarding chronic Lyme disease.
• In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation (D. N.J.) – Served as resolution counsel in successful settlement of reverse payment class action.
• Philadelphia Taxi Association v. Uber (E.D. Pa) – Obtained Rule 12 dismissal of Section 2 attempted monopolization claim arising out of alleged violations of taxi regulations, which was affirmed by the Third Circuit on appeal.
• DiMartino v. BMW North America (D. N.J.) – Achieved dismissal on the pleadings of Section 2 putative class action alleging aftermarket tying.
• Gordon v. Travelport (S.D.N.Y.) – Obtained dismissal of damages claims brought by a putative class of indirect purchasers alleging collusion among global distribution systems to impose contractual restrictions on airlines.
• Willow Creek Fuels v. Buckeye Partners (E.D. Pa.) – Obtained dismissal at the pleadings stage of Section 1 and 2 Sherman Act claims, as well as Clayton Act Section 3 exclusive dealing claims brought against Buckeye by a terminated fuel distributor.
• Network Visual Services v. ARAMARK Sports and Entertainment (C.D. Cal.) – Obtained Rule 12 dismissal of Section 1 and 2 claims arising out of an alleged exclusive agreement to provide closed circuit advertising services at the Las Vegas Convention Center.
• POP Diesel Fuel Systems v. ASTM (D.N.M.) – Obtained denial of a motion for preliminary injunction and complete dismissal of Section 1 Sherman Act claim brought against a standard development organization by a producer of triglyceride fuel.
• Caltex Plastics Inc. v. Berry Plastics (C.D. Cal.) – Successfully defended a manufacturer of military specification plastic sheeting against secondary-line Robinson-Patman Act claim.
• Advanced Technology Corporation v. ASTM (D. Mass.) – Obtained with prejudice dismissal of a Sherman Act Section 1 claim brought against a standard development organization by a supplier of metal testing equipment.
• Deborah Heart & Lung Center v. University of Pennsylvania Health System (D.N.J.) – Successfully resolved claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act against a leading hospital system arising out of supposedly exclusive agreement pertaining to advanced cardiac services.

Brendan’s current litigation matters include:

• Defending branded pharmaceutical manufacturer against class action antitrust claims arising out of an alleged improper listing of certain patents for the diabetes drug, Actos, in the Orange Book.
• Defending generic pharmaceutical supplier in reverse payment antitrust actions pertaining to Zetia.
• Defending leading pharmacy benefit manager in antitrust and RICO cases alleging a conspiracy to increase prices on insulin products.
• Defending generic pharmaceutical supplier in multidistrict price-fixing cases.
• Defending a leading vaccine manufacturer against putative class action alleging Sherman Act Section 2 violations and related state law claims.