United States: 2nd Circ. FTAIA Ruling: Some Clarity, Some Unresolved Issues

Law360, New York (June 06, 2014, 3:24 PM ET) -- Long-simmering issues concerning the applicability of the Sherman Act to foreign conduct under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6a, were addressed in the June 4, 2014, decision of the Second Circuit in Lotes Co. Ltd. v Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. Ltd, et al., No. 13-2280 (2d Cir. June 4, 2014). Decisive in tone but offering limited guidance for the future, the decision addresses several issues for which there are inconsistent decisions — or at least a lack of consensus — among the courts of appeals and the district courts.

The question of the Sherman Act's extraterritorial reach is of increasing importance as private litigation over international cartel conduct remains very active, and claims of injuries in the U.S. attributable to competitive conditions outside the country become more and more a hallmark of the global supply chain. Lotes is the first of three appellate decisions regarding the FTAIA expected this year or next year; the others are from the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Leung,1 and from the Seventh Circuit in Motorola Mobility,2 where various parties have sought en banc reconsideration of an opinion discussed below.

The Holdings in Lotes

In Lotes, the Second Circuit held that (1) the requirements of the FTAIA are substantive and not jurisdictional; (2) foreign anti-competitive conduct can meet the FTAIA's "direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect" test so long as there is a "reasonably proximate causal nexus between the conduct and the effect"; (3) under the facts pleaded in the case, the FTAIA's test that the effect "gives rise to a claim under" the Sherman Act was not satisfied; and (4) a private agreement suggesting that the Sherman Act would apply to the parties' relationship did not constitute a "waiver" of elements of the FTAIA or otherwise allow suit in the U.S. courts under the Sherman Act.


Plaintiff Lotes is a Taiwanese corporation that designs and manufactures USB connectors that are components in computers, smartphones, computer peripherals and other electronic devices. Defendants are a group of companies that compete with Lotes in the design and manufacture of USBs, but also produce devices (such as personal computers and peripherals) that incorporate USBs. Lotes and the defendants are members of a trade group that produced a technical standard, USB 3.0, for a new generation of USBs. All participants agreed as a condition of their membership in the standard-setting organization to make available to all other members royalty-free, reasonable and nondiscriminatory ("RAND-Zero") license terms for any patents required to satisfy the new standard.

Lotes alleged that the defendants breached their obligations to provide RAND-Zero licenses and took steps — including marketplace communications and patent infringement suits in China — to marginalize Lotes as a potential competitor and to secure for the defendants a dominant position that would result in higher USB prices worldwide, including in the U.S. Lotes sued the defendants in U.S. district court in New York, and appealed to the Second Circuit after its case was dismissed based on the FTAIA.


The Delphic language of the FTAIA has been construed by the U.S. Supreme Court to place all (nonimport) activity involving foreign commerce outside the Sherman's Act reach, but then makes such foreign conduct subject to the Sherman Act provided that both (1) the foreign conduct sufficiently affects U.S. commerce, i.e., it has a "direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect" on U.S. domestic, import, or (certain) export commerce, and (2) the effect on U.S. commerce independently "giv[es] rise to" a claim by the plaintiff that is cognizable under the Sherman Act.3

The Second Circuit's decision addressed these principal questions: (1) whether the FTAIA provisions above are jurisdictional or, alternatively, are elements that a plaintiff must prove in order to recover; (2) what relationship between conduct and an effect in the U.S. is implied by the term "direct;" (3) whether foreign monopolization conduct that allegedly causes injuries overseas satisfies the "gives rise to" requirement; and (4) whether venue and other agreements made by the defendants as a condition of their participation in the standard-setting trade group constituted a waiver of certain of the statutory requirements. The Second Circuit ruled as follows:

1. The FTAIA Is Substantive, Not Jurisdictional

A threshold question addressed by the court involved the framework under which FTAIA-based challenges to complaints are analyzed. Courts have wrestled for years with the question whether the FTAIA is jurisdictional or merely substantive. While not affecting the meaning of the provisions, the answer to the question may profoundly affect the course of litigation, among other reasons because of the potential availability of motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), and differences in the scope of discovery. The Second Circuit had held in 1998 that the FTAIA's requirements are jurisdictional.4 In light of more recent Supreme Court decisions, however, the Lotes panel overruled the circuit law and held that the requirements of the FTAIA are substantive rather than jurisdictional.

2. The "Direct, Substantial, and Reasonably Foreseeable Effect" Test Should Be Given a Flexible Meaning

The court's decision focused on the meaning of the term "direct" in the statutory requirement that to be actionable in the U.S., foreign anti-competitive conduct must have a "direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect" on commerce in the U.S. courts have applied two different tests for assessing whether foreign conduct had a "direct" effect on commerce in the U.S.

The Ninth Circuit has taken a strict approach, holding that "an effect is 'direct' if it follows as an immediate consequence of the defendant's activity."5 The Seventh Circuit, however, sitting en banc, has taken a more functional approach, concluding that "the term 'direct' means only that 'a reasonably proximate causal nexus'" exists between the conduct and the injury in the U.S., whether or not the effect is "immediate."6 The U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission have advocated using the latter test, seeking rulings that would aid the government in connection with enforcement efforts against international cartels.

The Second Circuit agreed with the Seventh Circuit and the DOJ/FTC, explaining, among other things, that reading "direct" as "immediate" would render the "reasonably foreseeable" language in the statute superfluous: "To demand that any domestic effect must follow as an immediate consequence of a defendant's foreign anticompetitive conduct would all but collapse the FTAIA's domestic effects exception into its separate import exclusion."7

Accordingly, the court adopted the "reasonably proximate causal nexus" test, explaining that courts "will have to consider all of the relevant facts, using all of the traditional tools courts have used to analyze questions of proximate causation."8 Importantly, the court did not proceed to determine whether the allegations in Lotes' complaint satisfy this standard, leaving its decision technically dictum. Rather, the court based its decision on the complaint's failure to satisfy a different FTAIA requirement, discussed below.

3. The "Gives Rise to a Claim" Test Should Be Given a Literal Interpretation

The court ultimately dismissed the complaint based on its failure to satisfy the FTAIA's requirement that the domestic effect "give[] rise to a claim under" the Sherman Act. It explained that the plain meaning of that language is that the FTAIA is not satisfied unless the foreign conduct causes a domestic effect that in turn is the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. Lotes did not satisfy the test, because even though it alleged that the defendants' foreign conduct resulted in higher consumer prices in the United States, those prices were not the injury that Lotes allegedly suffered. To the contrary, Lotes complained of injury from being excluded from the market for USB 3.0 connectors, which flowed from the defendants' alleged foreign exclusionary conduct and not from higher consumer prices in the United States.9

The court also rejected Lotes's argument that it suffered domestic injury based on its allegation that defendants' refusal to license certain claims of certain U.S. patents foreclosed competition in the U.S., finding the allegations relating to U.S. patents to be trivial in the context of the acts alleged.

4. Private Agreements on Applicability of the Sherman Act Do Not Override the FTAIA

Finally, the court considered the question whether private agreements that the defendants entered into in connection with global standard-setting activities to comply with the Sherman Act, and to have disputes heard in U.S. courts, operated as a waiver of any argument that the alleged breaches of those agreements were not within the scope of suits that may be brought under the FTAIA. The court concluded that such provisions merely expressed rules to be followed if the Sherman Act otherwise was applicable and thus that no waiver had occurred. But the court's broad and at times confusing suggestion that parties' private agreements could be deemed to waive requirements of the FTAIA because it is not jurisdictional may generate its own share of litigation.

Impact of the Second Circuit's Lotes Decision

The scope of the FTAIA is being heavily litigated in antitrust cases throughout the United States, most commonly in the many international price-fixing cases pending in district courts around the country. At a high level, the Lotes decision will help plaintiffs to the extent it adds to the weight of authority that the FTAIA is not jurisdictional. In other words, while defendants may still move to dismiss complaints that fail to allege the FTAIA elements, plaintiffs will cite Lotes to argue that such motions may not be brought in the context of challenges to a court's jurisdiction, in which early, special-purpose discovery may be brought to bear on the question. More complaints may proceed to merits discovery as a result, increasing defense costs and the likelihood of settlements.

On the merits, the Second Circuit's construction of the requirement that an effect on U.S. commerce be "direct" also favors plaintiffs. Many claims at issue in FTAIA cases involve U.S. purchases of products that incorporate components that were the subject of alleged price-fixing activity abroad. The Lotes decision may help plaintiffs in these cases because it adds to the authority that the FTAIA does not impose a bright-line rule requiring an "immediate" effect that could be used to dismiss cases involving multilevel production chains. On this point, though, the fact that the Lotes case did not involve alleged price-fixing of a component, and the Second Circuit's decision not to apply the law to the facts of the case, leave open what may be the most significant issue in current FTAIA jurisprudence.

In April 2014, Judge Richard Posner wrote an opinion for the Seventh Circuit in Motorola Mobility10 holding categorically that the requirement that a U.S. injury be "direct" precluded claims arising from allegedly inflated prices for LCD screens incorporated into cellphones sold in the U.S., because the LCD screens first were purchased by Motorola's overseas subsidiaries. Motorola is seeking en banc review, and the U.S. government is supporting Motorola, arguing that the decision is inconsistent with the Seventh Circuit's decision in Minn-Chem, which the Second Circuit (in part at the U.S. government's request) adopted in Lotes. Judge Posner thought Minn-Chem distinguishable, but it is apparent that view is not universally held, and that many important questions remain unanswered in connection with how the "reasonably proximate causal nexus" test will be applied.

As noted above, the Second Circuit's decision in Lotes is the first of three anticipated appellate decisions regarding the FTAIA. The United States has filed briefs in the Seventh Circuit Motorola Mobility case and the Ninth Circuit Leung case expressing concerns about limiting the scope of the FTAIA. In the Motorola Mobility case, the governments of Korea, Japan and Taiwan have filed briefs or statements expressing concerns about an expansive application of the FTAIA, and the Seventh Circuit has asked the United States to submit a brief addressing international comity concerns. Given the importance of the proper interpretation and application of the FTAIA — and the inconsistency in how courts are interpreting and applying it — the issues are well on their way to being teed up for petitions for review by the U.S. Supreme Court.


1 No. 13-10242 (9th Cir.).

2 Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., 746 F.3d 842 (7th Cir. 2014).

3 F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran SA, 542 U.S 155, 162 (2004).

4 Filetech SA v. France Telecom SA, 157 F.3d 922 (2d Cir. 1998).

5 United States v. LSL Biotechnologies, 379 F.3d 672, 680 (9th Cir. 2004).

6 Minn-Chem Inc. v. Agrium Inc., 683 F.3d 845, 857 (7th Cir. 2012) (en banc).

7 Slip op. at 40.

8 Id. at 44.

9 Cf. Empagran SA v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche Ltd., 417 F.3d 1267, 1271 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (injury must be proximately caused by the domestic effects).

10 See n.2, supra.

Originally published by Law360

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
15 Nov 2018, Webinar, Newark, United States

We are now 6 months into this groundbreaking new law which has significant impact on businesses in and outside the EU.

15 Nov 2018, Webinar, Washington, United States

Over the last decade, a new phenomenon in the sports law arena has emerged: from improper drug dispensing to traumatic brain injury to publicity rights, class actions have become a popular vehicle for litigating sports-related claims.

15 Nov 2018, Webinar, New York, United States

In its fifteenth year, this program gives attendees access to more federal judges than any similar program and provides the opportunity to learn at an advanced level from the leading eDiscovery practitioners and academics from across the country.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions