JUNE2002 MOTIONSTODISMISSPATENTMISUSEANDANTITRUST INTHISISSUE COUNTERCLAIMSPROVEEFFECTIVEINPATENTLITIGATION 2 EU ADOPTSNEWLENIENCYPOLICY

Two recent court decisions obtained by against Funai Electronics by Orion Electric, a 2 MORGANLEWISWINSDISMISSALOF Morgan Lewis lawyers may signal a promising VCR manufacturer, and Orion America, its U.S. ANTITRUSTLAWSUITFORBANKAUSTRIA shift in favor of owners facing patent affiliate. The case centered on Funai’s offer of misuse defenses and antitrust claims. U.S. a “package license” under seven U.S. 3 FTC TAKESSTRONGACTIONON district court judges in the Northern District which it claimed Orion’s VCRs infringed. Orion CONSUMERPROTECTIONANDPRIVACY- of California and the Southern District of New asserted both patent misuse and antitrust RELATEDISSUES York recently took the unusual step of dis- claims under Section 2 of the Sherman Act missing patent misuse defenses based on based on the theory that Funai’s licensing 3 TERMINATIONOFAFRANCHISEE: DOES reasoning that has historically only been strategy constituted an illegal tie. On behalf “GOODCAUSE” MEAN“GOODFAITH”? applied to antitrust claims. of Funai, Morgan Lewis filed a motion to dismiss arguing that Orion had not suffi- In the Northern District of California, LG 4 MORGANLEWISOBTAINSREVERSALOF ciently asserted in any of the Electronics filed a series of patent infringe- $271 MILLIONJURYVERDICT ment cases based on six patents embodying alleged relevant markets. Despite Orion’s assertions that Funai had 33% and 50% technology related to computer systems. In 4 RECENTPUBLICATIONSBYMORGANLEWIS market shares in two of the markets, the court response, several of the defendants asserted ANTITRUSTPARTNERS antitrust counterclaims and patent misuse adopted Morgan Lewis’ argument and dis- defenses based on allegations that LG’s patent missed not only the antitrust claims, but also infringement claims were objectively baseless. the claim based on patent misuse. LG moved to dismiss the counterclaims and The LG and Funai decisions should encour- strike the misuse defenses because they were age patent owners facing patent misuse WASHINGTONP PHILADELPHIAP NEWYORK conclusory in that they did not properly allege defenses to consider seeking their dismissal. LOSANGELESP MIAMIP PRINCETON , market power or anticompet- Like antitrust claims, patent misuse defenses PITTSBURGHP HARRISBURGP NORTHERNVIRGINIA itive effects, allegations necessary to assert add significant complexity to patent litigation LONDONP BRUSSELSP FRANKFURTP TOKYO an antitrust claim. Although this kind of by increasing the scope of issues relevant for argument is hardly novel in the antitrust discovery and trial; the rewards of a success- context, it has rarely been applied to patent ful motion are therefore substantial. This newsletter is provided as a general infor- misuse defenses. Nonetheless, with little to Antitrust practice group Partners Scott mational service to clients and friends of no case law directly on point, Morgan Lewis Stempel and Willard K. Tom developed the Morgan, Lewis &Bockius LLP. It should not be persuaded the court to analyze the patent motion to dismiss strategy, working closely construed as imparting legal advice on any misuse allegations using antitrust principles. specific matter. It was the court’s adoption of this simple, but with Partners in Morgan Lewis’ litigation and surprisingly novel, approach that won the intellectual property groups. day: the court concluded that antitrust prin- Scott Stempel has considerable experience ciples demonstrated that the claimants could litigating and advising clients on the antitrust not, as a matter of law, plead the requisite aspects of intellectual property restrictions anticompetitive effect element necessary to and their enforcement. He has counseled establish their patent misuse allegations, and technology owners and litigated cases on dismissed the defense as well as the antitrust patent acquisition and enforcement, joint counterclaims. ventures, marketing activities, licensing, stan- In March 2002, Morgan Lewis successfully dard setting and patent pooling. Will Tom MORGAN, LEWIS& BOCKIUSLLP persuaded the District Court for the Southern served in policy positions at both federal COUNSELORSATLAW©2002 District of New York to adopt the same antitrust agencies. At the FTC, he served as approach in a declaratory judgment case filed Deputy Director of the Bureau of (continued on page 2)

Morgan, Lewis & BockiusLLPn MORGANLEWISONCOMPETITION 1 MOTIONSTODISMISSMAYBEMORE The policy change also allows for reduced Jürgen Beninca, an associate resident in EFFECTIVEINPATENTLITIGATION fines for companies that provide evidence of Frankfurt, Germany, is spending a year in “significant added value” to the Commission. Washington. He represents clients in (continued from page 1) There is a sliding scale of fine reductions based cases brought by the European Commission and head of the Bureau’s Policy Office. At on the timing of cooperation: the second as well as in merger proceedings of the EC’s party to approach the Commission will receive DOJ, he was Counselor to the Assistant Merger Task Force and the German Federal a reduction of 30-50 percent, the third a reduc- Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Cartel Office. tion of 20-30 percent, and the fourth up to 20 Division and had responsibility for telecom- percent. Full immunity is available only to munications and intellectual property companies that did not coerce others to par- matters. Tom also recently testified at the ticipate in the cartel. Reduced fines are MORGANLEWISWINS DOJ/FTC Hearings on the Intellectual available for companies that do not meet this Property and Antitrust Interface. DISMISSALOF criterion, provided they stop their participa- tion in the cartel at the time they start ANTITRUSTLAWSUITFOR EU ADOPTSNEWLENIENCY cooperating with the Commission. BANKAUSTRIA The full text of the revised EC leniency OLICY P policy, together with the press release and Morgan Lewis recently won dismissal Donald C. Klawiter and Jürgen Beninca related materials, can be accessed at of an antitrust class action lawsuit for www.europa.eu.int/comm/competition/ client Bank Austria AG. The lawsuit, brought in the U.S. District Court in the The European Commission recently antitrust/leniency. Southern District of New York, alleged a adopted the revised leniency policy reported The EU’s policy changefollows more closely conspiracy among Austrian, Dutch, in the last issue of ONCOMPETITION. The policy the U.S. leniency program, so it should Italian and German banks to fix the fees change is intended to provide greater incen- enhance harmony among jurisdictions. It is charged for European currency exchange. tive for companies involved in also much broader than the 1996 policy it Morgan Lewis led a joint defense on and other cartel activities to cooperate with replaces, which required a company to offer behalf of all the defendants in prevailing on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject EUinvestigations. “decisive” evidence and excluded from partic- matter jurisdiction. Under the revised policy, the Commission ipation companies that had “instigated” or will grant full immunity played a “determining” role in a cartel. Nonetheless, the policy still offers partici- The procedural posture of the case (1) to the first member of an undetected proved important. Because the class pants less protection than the U.S. approach. cartel which provides sufficient infor- that plaintiff’s complaint alleged had not mation to allow an inspection of the More importantly, any decision with respect been certified, the judge only considered suspected participants in a “dawn raid”; to the Commission must take into account the the currency transactions engaged in by or potential consequences in the United States, the named plaintiff. Although the plain- tiff alleged a class of all individuals who given the high likelihood of both a U.S. gov- (2) to the first member of the cartel engaged in currency exchange transac- which provides evidence allowing the ernment enforcement action and private class tions in boththe United States and Commission to establish “an infringe- action litigation. In the EU, leniency requires Europe, he had not himself engaged in ment,” if no other entity has qualified submission of written materials. Those materi- any transactions in the United States. for immunity under (1). als may be discoverable in the United States, and may provide a basis for an antitrust claim. The judge agreed with Morgan Lewis’ Accordingly, all written communications with PLEASEPROVIDEUSWITHYOUR arguments that the currency exchanges EC authorities must be crafted carefully, and in Europe in which the plaintiff engaged E-MAILADDRESS coordination among counsel in the United had no direct effect on U.S. commerce and that the allegations that defendants We occasionally schedule teleseminars on States, Canada, EU, and even EU member states is essential to anticipate and minimize fixed prices on transactions in the United short notice to provide information to clients States were not relevant because those regarding important developments in the collateral consequences in these jurisdic- transactions did not give rise to the antitrust law on a timely basis. We also tions. plaintiff’s claim. Consequently, he dis- plan to publish this newsletter electroni- missed the case. cally. Don Klawiter, a Partner resident in Washington, D.C., represents corporations and If you are interested in receiving e-mail notices of our “Hot Topic individuals in large international cartel cases. The Morgan Lewis team was led by Teleseminars,” our scheduled teleseminars He often serves as lead counsel, responsible Antitrust Practice Group Partner John H. and an electronic version of this newsletter, for coordinating global responses to multiple Shenefield, who argued the case. please send your e-mail address to elilye- investigations. Klawiter is a member of the Partners Jonathan M. Rich and Gregory P. [email protected]. Asciolla were responsible for writing the ABA Section of Antitrust Law’s Task Force on briefs, with help from associate John F. The Firm respects your privacy and will not International . Terzaken, III. release your e-mail address outside the Firm.

2 Morgan, Lewis & BockiusLLPn MORGANLEWISONCOMPETITION FTC TAKESSTRONG Although many of the FTC’s enforcement TERMINATIONOFA actions have been directed toward activities ACTIONONCONSUMER that seem easily categorized as deceptive or FRANCHISEE: DOES“GOOD fraudulent (products that claimed to protect CAUSE” MEAN“GOOD PROTECTIONANDPRIVACY- consumers against Anthrax poisoning and get RELATEDISSUES rich by working from home schemes, etc.), the FAITH”? FTC’s consumer protection and privacy initia- Charles J. Reitmeyer tives are not solely aimed at “fringe” As FTC Chairman Timothy J. Muris prom- businesses. Many aspects of Chairman Muris’s In General Motors Corp. v. The New A.C. ised, the FTC is making privacy and consumer Privacy Agenda will have ramifications for Chevrolet, Inc.,263 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 2001), an protection issues an agency priority. For FY mainstream business. For example, the pro- automobile dealer challenged General Motors’ 2003, the FTC requested a 50 percent increase posed amendments to the Telemarketing Sales termination of its franchise, arguing unsuc- in funding for its privacy protection programs. Rule (“TSR”) will impact not only the tele- Even without that increase in funding, the cessfully that the stated reason for marketing industry, but also companies that termination was pretextual. The dealer con- FTC in the last year obtained nearly $100 use their existing customer lists to sell prod- million in consumer redress in consumer pro- tended it was terminated not because it added ucts. The FTC’s proposed Do Not Call Registry tection cases. The FTC also announced a a Volkswagen line in violation of its franchise will require (with limited exceptions) compa- number of new consumer-protection initia- agreement, but because General Motors nies to ensure that they do not call consumers tives, including planned to make the dealer’s competitor the listed in the FTC database — even if they are exclusive Chevrolet dealer in Jersey City, New •a three-point program consisting of preexisting customers. The Registry may also Jersey. The Third Circuit discussed, but did warning, enforcement and consumer edu- facilitate FTC enforcement of the TSR, making not decide, whether New Jersey’s Franchise cation intended to eliminate deceptive, the existing fines a more credible deterrent. Practices Act’s requirement that a termination junk or “spam” e-mail; In addition, the FTC’s privacy and con- occur only for “good cause” also requires that •programs implementing the security provi- sumer protection enforcement actions are a manufacturer act in “good faith.” sions of Gramm Leach Bliley governing already affecting major companies. In financial institutions’ treatment of cus- The dealer added Volkswagen automobiles January, the FTC announced that it reached a tomer financial information; to its dealership without General Motors’ settlement with Eli Lilly and Co. arising out of consent. General Motors learned of the •a new complaint form designed to simplify Eli Lilly’s unintentional disclosure of the dealer’s plan, and objected, noting that the the process for victims of identity theft, e-mail addresses collected by its websites of Dealership Agreement prohibited the dealer which accounted for 42 percent of the consumers using Prozac and other prod- from adding other vehicle lines without “prior 204,000 complaints received by the FTC in ucts. (A Lillyemployee sent an e-mail to written authorization.” After attempts to 2001; subscribers of a reminder service without negotiate a compromise failed, General •a new initiative designed to enhance com- hiding their email addresses.) Although the Motors terminated the dealer and filed suit pliance with the Children’s Online Privacy settlement did not include a financial seeking a declaration that the termination Protection Rule; and penalty, and the situation that precipitated was proper. •amendments to the Telemarketing Sales the case was unusual, Lilly was required to Under the New Jersey Franchise Practices Rule, including specific requirements for establish a more comprehensive security Act, a franchisor may only terminate a fran- credit card protection programs, new rules program than might otherwise have been nec- chisee for “good cause.” N.J. Stat. Ann. § regarding charity solicitations, and estab- essary under the law. Accordingly, all 56:10-5. The Act defines “good cause” as the lishment of a “Do Not Call Registry.” businesses that market or sell products or “failure by the franchisee to substantially services to consumers should be aware of the comply with those requirements imposed FTC’s new priorities and enforcement activi- upon him by the franchise.” Id. The dealer, LEADINGLITIGATOR ties. Companies should check their privacy however, argued that a franchisor must also WILLIAML. WEBBERJOINS and marketing policies to be sure they are act in “good faith.” consistent with FTC guidance. WASHINGTONOFFICE The trial court held that motive was irrele- Washington Partners Stephen Paul vant, and found for General Motors based on Bill Webber, a litigator and trial lawyer Mahinka, Caswell O. Hobbs III, Peter E. its conclusion that the dealer committed a with more than 20 years of experience in Halle, and Penelope M. (“Gari”) Lister are material breach of its franchise agreement. On complex commercial litigation, joined experienced in handling consumer protection appeal, the Third Circuit avoided the question, Morgan Lewis’ Washington office from issues and enforcement actions brought by holding that, even if a “good faith” require- Howrey Simon Arnold & White. His practice the FTC. ment were read into the Act, the dealer “failed emphasizes trademark, false advertising, antitrust and white collar criminal litigation. to furnish record evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue as to whether GM acted in Bill Webber can be reached at good faith (or without a pretextual motive) in (202) 739-5798 or [email protected]. terminating” the franchisee. 263 F.3d at 320.

(continued on page 4)

Morgan, Lewis & BockiusLLPn MORGANLEWISONCOMPETITION 3 TERMINATIONOFAFRANCHISEE: DOES“GOODCAUSE” MEAN“GOODFAITH”? UPCOMINGTELESEMINAR (continued from page 3) TOPICS As a result, the issue of whether a franchisor persuaded the court to enter judgment of may use a violation of the franchise agree- approximately $1.5 million on the client’s Recent Developments in International ment as a pretext to terminate a franchise in counterclaims for unpaid invoices and Cartel Investigations bad faith is undecided in New Jersey. The law improperly obtained rebates. Donald C. Klawiter in other states is settled on this point, but Jürgen Beninca there is no consensus. This case offers an example of a broad RECENTPUBLICATIONSBY Vertical and Distribution Issues from problem: traps exist for the unwary when ter- the Government and Client Perspectives: minating dealers and franchisees. There are MORGANLEWISANTITRUST Life Sciences and Beyond numerous and varying state franchise and PARTNERS Stephen Paul Mahinka dealer protection statutes. Whenever a manu- Willard K. Tom facturer considers terminating a dealer, it should determine whether the parties’ contract Casting a Long IP Shadow Over Antitrust or the applicable state law requires “good Jurisprudence: The Federal Circuit’s The International Criminal Meets the Expanding Jurisdictional Reach Civil Treble Damages Plaintiff in U.S. cause” for the termination. Even when a Court manufacturer has “good cause” to terminate a Scott A. Stempel and John F. Terzaken, III, 69 ANTITRUSTLAWJOURNAL711 (2002) Donald C. Klawiter dealer, it may still have to provide the dealer Peter E. Halle with an opportunity to cure shortcomings, give Stempel and Terzaken discuss two issues of it reasonable notice of the termination or practical significance: (1) why cases like In Morgan Lewis teleseminars employ a 45- fulfill other post-termination obligations, such re Independent Service Organizations Antitrust minute listen-only format, followed by as repurchasing the dealer’s remaining inven- Litigation were before the Federal Circuit and 15-minutes for questions submitted via e- tory. During this interim period, the (2) even if they were properly before the mail. To sign up for any or all of our Federal Circuit, what legal precedents should teleseminars, please send an e-mail to manufacturer should carefully manage its [email protected] or contact a communications with the terminated dealer to have governed the court’s decisions? The member of the Antitrust Practice Group. ensure that nothing is said that might subse- Federal Circuit’s recent decisions dramatically Recordings are also available via a 1-800 quently be used against it by the dealer. increase the scope of its exclusive jurisdiction number for the month immediately follow- to decide appeals of antitrust and other non- ing each teleseminar. In addition, CDs of Manufacturers are well-advised to seek the teleseminars are available upon counsel when considering a dealer termina- (continued on page 5) request. Recent topics addressed in our tion and when implementing it. Counsel’s teleseminars included A Strategic Checklist assistance can be especially valuable drafting for Multi-Jurisdiction Notifications, with Robert S. Schlossberg the termination letter, a critical piece of evi- MORGANLEWIS and Izzet Sinan, and FTC/DOJ Intellectual dence when a termination leads to litigation. Property Hearings — An Opportunity to A company’s internal documents must also be OBTAINSREVERSALOF Influence IP/Antitrust Policy, with Willard closely monitored as they too will be subject $271 MILLIONJURYVERDICT K. Tom and Scott A. Stempel. Related materials are on our website, www.morgan- to discovery. lewis.com. Morgan Lewis’ Antitrust Practice Group is On March 28, Morgan Lewis won experienced in advising clients on franchise judgment for Medtronic AVE, a defen- and dealer relations, and litigating disputes. dant in one of the largest patent MORGANLEWISSPONSOROF Charles J. (“Buck”) Reitmeyer, of counsel in infringement cases ever to go to trial. Philadelphia, focuses his practice on distri- The U.S. District Court for the District BIO2002 bution issues, including franchise and dealer of Delaware granted AVE’s post-trial relations. In a recent dealer termination motion for judgment as a matter of law, Morgan Lewis is proud to sponsor the reversing a $271 million jury verdict. 16th annual International Biotechnology case, National Medical, Inc. v. SCA Hygiene Products, Civ. Act. No. 99-CV-04790 The November 2000 verdict was ren- Convention and Exhibition, which will be dered in favor of the plaintiff, Cordis, a held June 9-12 at the Metro Toronto (D.N.J.), Reitmeyer and Mark P. Edwards, an antitrust practice group Partner, obtained Johnson & Johnson subsidiary. Morgan Convention Centre in Toronto, Ontario. Lewis antitrust Partner Peter M. Boyle summary judgment for Morgan Lewis’ client BIO represents more than 1,000 biotech- was a member of the team that drafted nology companies, academic institutions, SCA Hygiene Products on National Medical’s the successful motion; Antitrust prac- state biotechnology centers and related claims that its dealership was improperly ter- tice group Partners Scott A. Stempel, organizations. New York Morgan Lewis minated without notice under New Jersey Penelope M. (“Gari”) Lister and Peter Partner Manya S. Deehr is serving as a law. In addition, Reitmeyer and Edwards M. Boyle played significant roles in moderator at the convention. trying the case.

4 Morgan, Lewis & BockiusLLPn MORGANLEWISONCOMPETITION RECENTPUBLICATIONSBYMORGANLEWIS Pharmaceutical Pricing: System Changes International Cartel Investigations: and Global Effects Practical Lessons in Multijurisdictional ANTITRUSTPARTNERS Kathleen M. Sanzo and Stephen Paul Mahinka, Coordination (continued from page 4) THEMETROPOLITANCORPORATECOUNSEL(March2002) Donald C. Klawiter and Julian Joshua, in 2002 ANTITRUSTREVIEWOFTHEAMERICAS(Chapter 1), patent claims that implicate issues of patent Sanzo and Mahinka discuss the range of govern- law, and expand the circumstances under published by Global Competition Review ment and private initiatives that they believe will which the Federal Circuit will apply its own have a dramatic effect on the structure of pharma- The authors’ analysis of international law. Stempel and Terzaken explore the implica- ceutical pricing, not only in the United States, but cartels is the first chapter in 2002 ANTITRUST tions of the Federal Circuit’s double-barreled also globally. They highlight initiatives of the U.S. REVIEWOFTHEAMERICAS, an annual publication expansion, and ponder the potential reach (or Department of Justice focused on health care fraud that surveys significant issues in global com- overreach) of the Federal Circuit’s potential to and abuse; FTC investigations directed at the impli- petition policy and practice.The chapter assert jurisdiction over antitrust cases in cations of agreements between innovator and describes how defense of criminal conspiracy which there is no express patent claim. generic companies under the Hatch-Waxman Act; enforcement actions has changed with the FDA’s unprecedented consideration of a citizen peti- explosion in international cartel cases, and Antitrust Law at the Federal Circuit: Red tion filed by health insurance companies requesting with the increase in the number of jurisdic- Light or Green Light at the IP-Antitrust that three drugs be sold over-the-counter; and pro- tions with antitrust enforcement programs. Intersection? posed federal and state regulation directed at The article offers insight into the problems Peter M. Boyle, Penelope M. Lister, and John C. prescription drug prices. that companies subject to enforcement in Everett, 69 ANTITRUSTLAWJOURNAL739 (2002) multiple jurisdictions face, as well as sugges- tions on how defense counsel can develop a Over the course of its brief history, the Antitrust Strategies For Mergers, strategy for addressing these actions. Federal Circuit has played an increasingly Acquisitions, Joint Ventures And Strategic prominent role in resolving the tensions Alliances: A Deskbook For Deal Makers between the antitrust laws and intellectual (Second Edition) Antitrust Law Developments V property laws. Lister, Boyle and Everett review Caswell O. Hobbs, III and Robert S. Schlossberg, Willard K. Tom, Member of Editorial Board, significant Federal Circuit precedent dealing available from Lexis Publishing May 30, 2002 published by the American Bar Association with four types of antitrust claims that typify Hobbs and Schlossberg have fully revised Section of Antitrust Law those tensions: (1) unilateral refusals to deal; and updated their 2000 deskbook. The desk- Tom served as a member of the editorial (2) Walker Processand Handgardsclaims based book is an essential tool for in-house counsel, board of the American Bar Association Section on fraudulent procurement or enforcement of corporate executives and attorneys, or anyone of Antitrust Law’s comprehensive two-volume intellectual property rights; (3) claims; involved in joint ventures and strategic treatise on antitrust law, perhaps the most and (4) predatory innovation claims. The alliances. It provides case studies to illus- widely respected desktop reference in the field. authors conclude that the court’s holdings in trate major issues, comprehensive strategic He previously served as Chair of the editorial these four areas generally comport with main- checklists to assist in planning for the merger board for an earlier edition of the treatise. stream antitrust principles. However, they review process, practical advice for working also find that the Federal Circuit does not through that process, forms, a timeline and articulate its reasoning very well, so that guides for handling Second Requests, and FORMERFEDERALCOURTJUDGE several of its opinions contain imprecise or appendices with all the relevant U.S. statutes ALFRED(“JIM”) LECHNER, JR misguided dicta that threaten to confuse and and guidelines, as well as the most important JOINSPRINCETONOFFICE mislead lower courts. international primary source material. Judge Lechner joined Morgan Lewis’ Princeton office following more than 15 Antitrust Enforcement in the Securities and The Antitrust Laws — A Primer, Fourth years on the bench as a U.S. District Commodities Markets Edition (2002) Judge for the District of New Jersey and Jonathan M. Rich, 35 THEREVIEWOFSECURITIES& John H. Shenefield and Irwin Steltzer two and one-half years on the Superior COMMODITIESREGULATION1 (2002) Shenefield and Steltzer’s Primer is an Court for the State of New Jersey. Recent enforcement actions indicate that introduction to antitrust policy and the way the Department of Justice and the Securities antitrust laws treat a variety of business & Exchange Commission continue to have a During Judge Lechner’s years on the practices. Intended for business executives strong interest in protecting competition in bench, he published more than 250 and students, the book will enable those opinions, including opinions addressing the securities and commodities markets. making day-to-day decisions in the business Rich traces government enforcement in the sophisticated securities, intellectual world to both appreciate and assess poten- financial markets from its beginnings in the property, and antitrust issues. He can be tial antitrust ramifications of business early twentieth century through today. The reached at (609) 919-6670 or alech- situations. The fourth edition of the Primer article then provides practical guidelines for [email protected]. has been revised to include expanded dis- antitrust compliance programs directed cussions of international antitrust toward the particular problems faced by firms enforcement and the application of antitrust engaged in the financial markets. laws to intellectual property.

Morgan, Lewis & BockiusLLPn MORGANLEWISONCOMPETITION 5 Morgan Lewis ANTITRUSTPRACTICEGROUP PARTNERSANDOFCOUNSEL

Gregory P. Asciolla 202.739.5344 [email protected] Peter M. Boyle 202.739.5339 [email protected] Peter E. Halle 202.739.5225 [email protected] Caswell O. Hobbs III 202.739.5200 [email protected] MORGANLEWISMOVESTO Michael S. Kelly 202.739.5210 [email protected] EW ASHINGTON FFICE Donald C. Klawiter 202.739.5222 [email protected] N W O Penelope M. Lister 202.739.5529 [email protected] Stephen Paul Mahinka 202.739.5205 [email protected] Jonathan M. Rich 202.739.5433 [email protected] Washington-based lawyers have new Robert S. Schlossberg 202.739.5212 [email protected] phone numbers, but e-mail addresses John H. Shenefield 202.739.5220 [email protected] Scott A. Stempel 202.739.5211 [email protected] (@morganlewis.com) Willard K. Tom 202.739.5389 [email protected] remain the same. Robert B. Wiggins 202.739.5040 [email protected] Phillip C. Zane 202.739.5638 [email protected] Our new general Jay H. Calvert, Jr. 215.963.5462 [email protected] information is: Joseph B.G. Fay 215.963.5509 [email protected] Mark P. Edwards 215.963.5769 [email protected] William P. Quinn, Jr. 215.963.5775 [email protected] MORGAN, LEWIS& BOCKIUSLLP Charles J. Reitmeyer 215.963.5652 [email protected] 1111 PENNSYLVANIAAVE., NW WASHINGTON, DC 20004 Edward D. Cavanagh 212.309.6017 [email protected] TEL: (202) 739.3000 Gregory S. Shatan 212.309.6852 [email protected] FAX: (202) 739.3001

Andrea Sheridan Ordin 213.612.1090 [email protected] www.morganlewis.com Theodore G. Spanos 213.612.1144 [email protected]

Izzet M. Sinan 32.2.507.75.22 [email protected]

Christian O. Zschocke 49.69.714.007.0711 [email protected]

Robert A. Goldspink 44.20.7710.5517 [email protected]

Motonori Araki 81.3.5219.2500 [email protected]

Executive Editors: Visit our Web site at: www.morganlewis.com Peter E. Halle and, for Hart-Scott-Rodino updates, visit our Willard K. Tom HSR site at www.morganlewis.com/hsr.htm. Managing Editor: This newsletter is published for the purpose of Penelope M. “Gari”Lister informing clients and friends of Morgan Lewis and should not be construed as imparting legal advice on any specific matter.

6 Morgan, Lewis & BockiusLLPn MORGANLEWISONCOMPETITION