<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Litigator - Affleck Greene McMurtry, LLP &#187; antitrust</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/tag/antitrust/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca</link>
	<description>Competition Law and Commercial Litigation Updates</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 13:41:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Competition Law Review &#8211; May 2009</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/05/competition-law-review-may-2009/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/05/competition-law-review-may-2009/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 19:05:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse of dominance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anti-competitive conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canadian competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carbonless paper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cartel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economic effect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[irreparable harm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misleading advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[monopolization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[predatory pricing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price maintenance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court of canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[us supreme court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=408</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Contributors: Michael Osborne, Sonny Ingram, Sandra Monardo, Michelle Booth, Adam Wygodny, and Donna Wilson.

Top stories
Canada’s new competition law
Budget 2009 includes the most significant amendments to the Competition Act in a generation:
•	A new “per se” conspiracy offence makes it illegal for competitors or potential competitors to fix prices, allocate markets, or control production of a product, even if there is no effect on competition...and more...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/05/competition-law-review-may-2009/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Class action attacks “economic effect” of DuPont’s prices</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/02/class-action-attacks-%e2%80%9ceconomic-effect%e2%80%9d-of-dupont%e2%80%99s-prices/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/02/class-action-attacks-%e2%80%9ceconomic-effect%e2%80%9d-of-dupont%e2%80%99s-prices/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2008 01:11:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[distribution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dupont]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario Superior Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resale price maintenance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RPM]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=231</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Canada’s first class action alleging vertical price maintenance may have far reaching consequences for Canadian manufacturers and distributors.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/02/class-action-attacks-%e2%80%9ceconomic-effect%e2%80%9d-of-dupont%e2%80%99s-prices/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The year of the guideline</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/01/the-year-of-the-guideline/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/01/the-year-of-the-guideline/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:28:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Anti-Competitive Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confidentiality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[immunity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leniency]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=255</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[2007 was the year of the guideline. The Competition Bureau issued six guidelines and bulletins, some in draft, some in final form.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/01/the-year-of-the-guideline/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rebate program case settles</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/01/rebate-program-case-settles/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/01/rebate-program-case-settles/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:57:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Anti-Competitive Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse of dominant position]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[monopolization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rebate programs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=335</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Canada Pipe Company Ltd. and the Competition Bureau have settled their long running dispute over the rebate program offered by Canada Pipe to its distributors by filing a consent agreement with the Competition Tribunal. This brings to an end an abuse of dominance case begun in 2002.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/01/rebate-program-case-settles/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Antitrust Division&#8217;s conduct in revoking immunity &#8220;fundamentally unfair&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/01/antitrust-divisions-conduct-in-revoking-immunity-fundamentally-unfair/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/01/antitrust-divisions-conduct-in-revoking-immunity-fundamentally-unfair/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 2008 01:28:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Bureau Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[immunity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leniency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stolt-Nielsen]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=354</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The US Department of Justice, Antitrust Division has lost its fight to evict Stolt-Nielsen S.A. from its immunity program.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/01/antitrust-divisions-conduct-in-revoking-immunity-fundamentally-unfair/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dolby complaint silenced</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/06/dolby-complaint-silenced/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/06/dolby-complaint-silenced/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:03:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Anti-Competitive Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Applications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[private applications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[refusal to deal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=229</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sono Pro Inc., a Montreal professional audio equipment reseller, has lost its attempt to force Sonotechnique P.J.L. Inc. to supply it with Dolby products.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/06/dolby-complaint-silenced/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rebate program case to be reconsidered by Competition Tribunal</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/05/rebate-program-case-to-be-reconsidered-by-competition-tribunal/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/05/rebate-program-case-to-be-reconsidered-by-competition-tribunal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2007 00:42:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Anti-Competitive Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse of dominant position]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[monopolization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rebate programs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=332</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On May 10, 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal to Canada Pipe Company Ltd. to appeal from a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal that substantially revised the test to be applied in cases of abuse of dominance.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/05/rebate-program-case-to-be-reconsidered-by-competition-tribunal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Intellectual property is not exempt from Competition Act’s reach</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/11/intellectual-property-is-not-exempt-from-competition-acts-reach/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/11/intellectual-property-is-not-exempt-from-competition-acts-reach/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2005 03:39:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse of dominant position]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[assignment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cartel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Bureau Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competition litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competition policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exclusive dealing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[industrial design]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[market allocation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price fixing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[private actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sherman act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unfair competition]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=149</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Eli Lilly and Co. v. Apotex Inc. On November 2 2005, the Federal Court of Appeal held that where an agreement to assign a patent increases the assignee&#8217;s market power in excess of that inherent in the patent itself, the provision in the Patent Act (s. 50) allowing the assignment does not prevent the agreement [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/11/intellectual-property-is-not-exempt-from-competition-acts-reach/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Competition Bureau obtains record fine for domestic paper conspiracy</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/01/competition-bureau-obtains-record-fine-for-domestic-paper-conspiracy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/01/competition-bureau-obtains-record-fine-for-domestic-paper-conspiracy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Jan 2005 01:37:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carbonless paper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carbonless sheets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cartel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price fixing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=245</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On January 9, 2006, fine paper distributors Cascades Fine Papers Group Inc., Domtar Inc. and Unisource Canada each pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy and were fined $12.5 million each, for a total of $37.5 million, for conspiring to fix the price for carbonless sheets.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/01/competition-bureau-obtains-record-fine-for-domestic-paper-conspiracy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

