R. Brendan Fee

In the last several years, Brendan has secured nearly a dozen motion to dismiss victories, many of which were affirmed on appeal. His clients include leading companies in diverse industries such as pharmaceuticals, technology, healthcare, retail andecommerce, automotive, energy, and industrial products.

Chambers USA has identified Brendan as a top antitrust practitioner, describing him as “an antitrust superstar” who is “knowledgeable and experienced." Chambers also described Brendan as a “brilliant antitrust lawyer” with “outstanding knowledge of the subject matter.” The 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 has repeatedly been named to 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 United States and Europe under the age of 40.

Brendan has written extensively on vertical restraints and pricing, as well as antitrust issues in the life sciences industry. He also speaks regularly on cutting-edge competition issues in the ecommerce sector.

As an adjunct professor of law at Rutgers Law School, Brendan has taught courses on topics such as legal writing and appellate advocacy. He formerly served as 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.

Class Action/Multiplaintiff Successes

• In re North Sea Brent Crude Oil Futures Litigation (S.D.N.Y./Second Circuit/US Supreme Court) – Obtained dismissal of Sherman Act Section 1 and 2 claims against Royal Dutch Shell arising out of alleged manipulation of the benchmark for North Sea Brent Crude Oil; affirmed by the Second Circuit and the Supreme Court on appeal
• Philadelphia Taxi Association v. Uber (E.D. Pa./Third Circuit) – Obtained Rule 12 dismissal of a Sherman Act Section 2 attempted monopolization claim against Uber arising out of alleged violations of taxi regulations; affirmed by the Third Circuit on appeal
• Allen v. Verizon (D.N.J.) – Obtained dismissal of federal antitrust claims against Verizon by a putative class of cell phone purchasers alleging collusion with respect to ESIM standards
• In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation (D.N.J.) – Served as resolution counsel for Merck in the successful settlement of a reverse payment class action
• DiMartino v. BMW North America (D.N.J.) – Achieved dismissal on the pleadings of a Sherman Act Section 2 putative class action alleging aftermarket tying against BMW
• Gordon v. Travelport (S.D.N.Y.) – Obtained dismissal of damages claims brought by a putative class of indirect purchasers against Travelport alleging collusion among global distribution systems to impose contractual restrictions on airlines
• Torrey v. Cigna Corp. (E.D. Tex.) – 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

Competitor/Single-Plaintiff Successes

• Helicopter Helmet Corp. v. Gentex Corp. (D. Del./Third Circuit) – Obtained with prejudice dismissal of Sherman Act Section 1 and 2 claims against Gentex arising out of alleged exclusionary conduct in the headwear protection market; affirmed by the Third Circuit on appeal
• Cable Line v. Comcast (M.D. Pa./Third Circuit) – Obtained dismissal on a Rule 12 motion of allegations of conspiracy to restrain trade in alleged cable installation market; later affirmed by the Third Circuit
• 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
• Willow Creek Fuels v. Buckeye Partners (E.D. Pa.) – Obtained dismissal at the pleadings stage of Sherman Act Section 1 and 2 claims and 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 Sherman Act 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 Sherman Act Section 1 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 Corp. 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./Third Circuit) – Successfully resolved claims under Sherman Act Sections 1 and 2 against a leading hospital system arising out of a supposedly exclusive agreement pertaining to advanced cardiac services

Distribution/Franchise Law

• Les Bijoux v. Richemont North America (M.D. Fla.) – Obtained a stay of Florida Franchise Act claims against supplier of luxury watches and jewelry in favor of arbitration in Switzerland and New York

Current Representative Cases

• Defending a 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 an online seller of licensed sports merchandise in multiple putative class actions alleging group boycott antitrust claims relating to the enforcement of league distribution policies
• Defending a branded pharmaceutical manufacturer against class action claims arising out of an alleged horizontal conspiracy to delay and order market entry with respect to the gout drug Colcrys
• Defending an automobile auction trade association against refusal to deal antitrust claims brought by an online auction company
• Defending a leading vaccine manufacturer against a putative class action alleging Sherman Act Section 2 violations and related state law claims
• Defending a technology firm in an antitrust class action arising out of allegations of horizontal price fixing with respect to telephone calling services for prison inmates