WilmerHale “is our firm of choice for intricate and testing matters.”
Chambers USA quoting client statements about WilmerHale’s antitrust practice

WilmerHale has one of the premier antitrust litigation practices in the world. We are consistently recognized by Chambers and Global Competition Review as a leading antitrust firm both in the United States and Europe. To that strength we add one of the world’s leading litigation and arbitration practices—recognized for our ability in cartel cases, intellectual property litigation and US Supreme Court advocacy. Unlike many other firms, our antitrust litigators are not just general litigators who have handled an antitrust case or two at some point in their careers. Instead, we have more than 20 lawyers for whom antitrust litigation is their primary or sole practice, and more than 40 more for whom antitrust litigation is a substantial percentage of their overall practice.

Throughout the US, UK and Europe we have successfully represented clients in major antitrust litigation. We have compiled a remarkable record of resolving antitrust claims through summary disposition, at trial, and on appeal against both private and government plaintiffs in the United States. We also have substantial experience in litigating against the European Commission and national competition authorities before the European Courts and the national member state courts. Our European antitrust litigators help clients navigate through civil antitrust litigation in the courts of some of the most important jurisdictions in Europe, including the UK and Germany. We have been involved in some of the largest, most complicated and most prominent matters of this kind.


Currently, we are defending clients in several ground-breaking private antitrust suits in the UK, Germany and the Netherlands. In addition, we often are engaged as coordinating counsel in global antitrust litigation matters, supervising litigation not only in the United States and Europe, but in Australia, Canada and elsewhere around the globe.

Representative matters include:

  • In re Rail Cartel Damages Litigation (Frankfurt District Court). Representing German railway company Deutsche Bahn AG in litigation before a German court against suppliers of rails concerning damages from the rail cartel. In 2012 and 2013, the German cartel authority had imposed significant fines on a number of steel producers for bid rigging and price fixing in the German rail market. On behalf of Deutsche Bahn AG, we filed a follow-on lawsuit for damages from the direct supply of rails to our client in late 2012. A few months later, we assisted our client in achieving two major settlements. Litigation against four defendants remains pending. This is one of the largest and most complex antitrust damages cases in German history and has received much attention in the press. Our team won the Global Competition Review global “Litigation of the Year 2014” award for its work on this matter.
  • FTC v. Intel Corporation (FTC). Defending Intel in the FTC's administrative complaint alleging violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act and antitrust violations relating to monopolization in computer microprocessor and other computer-related markets.
  • In re Automotive Parts Investigation (U.S.D.C. E.D. Mich.). Representing Japanese auto parts manufacturer DENSO and its US subsidiary in a criminal antitrust investigation and civil class action litigation. We secured a favorable settlement on behalf of DENSO with the Department of Justice in the largest antitrust investigation in US history.
  • FTC v. Cephalon; King Drug v. Cephalon; Vista Healthplan v. Cephalon; Apotex v. Cephalon (U.S.D.C. E.D. Pa.). Defending one of the world's fastest-growing biopharmaceutical companies in multiple lawsuits, including one brought by the FTC, challenging patent litigation settlements between Cephalon and four companies seeking FDA approval to market generic versions of Cephalon's leading pharmaceutical product, Provigil®.
  • In re Air Cargo Antitrust Litigation (U.S.D.C. E.D.N.Y.). Defending a major European air carrier in more than 100 consolidated private antitrust class action damage claims arising from the Justice Department's investigation into alleged price fixing among major air cargo carriers. We negotiated a favorable settlement and are assisting the companies in their ACPERA cooperation.
  • In re Margin Squeeze Damages Litigation (Cologne District Court/Düsseldorf Court of Appeals/German Supreme Court). Defending Deutsche Telekom AG against civil antitrust damages claims brought by eight competitors in separate follow-on lawsuits in Germany as a result of an alleged margin squeeze between wholesale and end-customer rates in the local loop from 1998 to 2003. The Cologne District Court dismissed two cases entirely; two other cases were partially dismissed; and in one case, the District Court indicated that it would fully dismiss the case. Subsequently, six of the claims have been settled. One of the two remaining claims was fully dismissed by the Düsseldorf Court of Appeals; the other claim was partially dismissed. Both remaining cases are currently pending before the German Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof).
  • Research in Motion Ltd., et al. v. Motorola, Inc. (U.S.D.C. N.D. Tex.). Asserting antitrust and breach of contract claims in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas arising out of a competitor's refusal to license patents declared essential to ETSI and IEEE on fair reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.
  • In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation (U.S.D.C. E.D.N.Y.). Representing a major MasterCard issuer in defending against a massive, multidistrict antitrust class action filed on behalf of merchants against Visa, MasterCard and the major payment card issuers alleging that the interchange fees set by Visa and MasterCard for processing credit card transactions are unlawful.
  • Princo v. International Trade Commission (Fed. Cir.). Representing Philips in persuading the Federal Circuit en banc to overturn a two-to-one panel decision that held that an exclusive cross-licensing agreement between Philips and Sony constituted patent misuse, and in successfully opposing petition for certiorari.
  • In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Multidistrict Litigation (U.S.D.C. D.N.J.). Representing one of the leading US insurance carriers in defending against a massive antitrust and RICO class action filed against most of the country's leading insurance carriers and brokers in the wake of Eliot Spitzer's investigation of Marsh McLennan and other major insurance brokers. The district court three times granted our motions to dismiss all claims in the case. WilmerHale Partner Seth Waxman argued the appeal of the final decision dismissing the claims with prejudice before the Third Circuit on behalf of the 15-defendant joint defense group. The Third Circuit's decision is pending.

Publications & News


November 1, 2017

WilmerHale Honored Throughout 2018 U.S. News - Best Lawyers® Best Law Firms List, Named Intellectual Property Litigation Firm of the Year

WilmerHale has been recognized among the 2018 U.S. News and World Report and Best Lawyers® list of Best Law Firms, an honor it has earned since the inception of these rankings in 2010.

October 27, 2017

WilmerHale Ranks No. 1 on Global Investigations Review's List of Top Investigations Practices

WilmerHale has climbed to the top of Global Investigations Review's list of the world's 30 leading investigations and compliance practices.

August 30, 2017

District Court Rejects Direct Purchaser Class for Failure to Satisfy Numerosity Requirement

On August 28, 2017, in King Drug Company of Florence, Inc., et al. v. Cephalon, Inc., et al., the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied class certification for direct purchasers asserting Hatch-Waxman reverse-payment antitrust claims because the 24-25 putative class members did not satisfy the numerosity requirement.

June 9, 2017

The Legal 500 United States 2017 Recognizes 125 WilmerHale Lawyers Across 28 Practice Areas

The Legal 500 United States has released its 2017 rankings, recommending 125 WilmerHale lawyers—including 12 who are named to its elite “Leading Lawyers” list and two on its “Next Generation Lawyers” list—and 28 practice areas in its 11th edition.

May 30, 2017

The National Law Journal Names WilmerHale Washington DC Litigation Department of the Year

The National Law Journal has named WilmerHale the 2017 Washington DC Litigation Department of the Year in the General Litigation category.

May 26, 2017

WilmerHale Lawyers and Practices Recognized in 2017 Edition of Chambers USA

Chambers and Partners announced its rankings for the 2017 edition of Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business, with WilmerHale listed among the nation's best in 50 practice area categories. Chambers also ranked 86 WilmerHale lawyers as leaders in their respective fields.

April 10, 2017

The Cambridge Handbook of Antitrust, Intellectual Property, and High Tech

WilmerHale Partners Leon Greenfield and Mark Ford authored the chapter "Walker Process and Sham Litigation" in The Cambridge Handbook of Antitrust, Intellectual Property, and High Tech. In the chapter, the authors discuss the history and development of the Walker Process and sham litigation doctrines, some of the key unresolved issues that courts struggle with today, and scholarship relating to these doctrines.

March 21, 2017

WilmerHale Recognized for Outstanding International Lawyers and Practices in Chambers Global 2017

Chambers Global has named 27 WilmerHale lawyers among "The World's Leading Lawyers for Business" in its 2017 edition.

March 8, 2017

President Trump Signs Revised Immigration Executive Order

On March 6, 2017, President Trump signed a substantially narrowed version of the January 27, 2017 Executive Order titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.”

February 28, 2017

President Trump Signs Executive Order Setting Guidelines for Identifying Regulations for Repeal, Replacement, or Modification

On February 24, 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order setting forth guidelines pursuant to which the Trump administration will implement and enforce its regulatory reform initiatives and identify regulations for repeal, replacement, or modification.