- Affirmative Recovery
- American Indian Law and Policy
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation
- Appellate Advocacy and Guidance
- Business Litigation
- Civil Rights and Police Misconduct
- Class Action Litigation
- Commercial/Project Finance and Real Estate
- Corporate Governance and Special Situations
- Corporate Restructuring and Bankruptcy
- Domestic and International Arbitration
- Ediscovery
- Health Care Litigation
- Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
- Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation
- Litigation Support Services
- Mass Tort Attorneys
- Medical Malpractice Attorneys
- Personal Injury Attorneys
- Telecommunications Litigation and Arbitration
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Disputes
-
February 26, 2021Personal Injury and Medical Malpractice Partners Named to Minnesota Lawyer’s Power 30 List
-
February 22, 2021Robins Kaplan Expands Health Care Litigation Group
-
February 1, 2021Meegan Hollywood Selected to Join American Antitrust Institute Advisory Board
-
March 6, 2021With Our Voices 2021 Arc Gala
-
March 6, 20211st Annual Tee It Up for the Troops Winter Outing
-
March, 9, 2021The New Frontier of Software License Disputes
-
Winter 2021Pro Bono Publico–For The Public Good
-
Winter 2021The Case for Charitable Giving
-
Winter 2021The Fictional Wealth Disputes That We Took In and Learned From in 2020
-
February 26, 2021Financial Daily Dose 2.26.2021 | Top Story: Rising Long-Term Bond Yields Blamed for Jumpy Markets
-
February 25, 2021Financial Daily Dose 2.25.2021 | Top Story: McKinsey Ousts Managing Partner on Heels of Opioid Settlement
-
February 24, 2021Financial Daily Dose 2.24.2021 | Top Story: Chair Powell Promises Continued Fed Support for US Economy
Co-Lead Counsel on Behalf of Direct Purchasers of “K-Cup” Coffee Pods Alleging Keurig’s Unlawful Monopolization of K-Cups
In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation, 14-md-02542 (S.D.N.Y.)
Robins Kaplan serves as court-appointed co-lead counsel on behalf of a class of direct purchasers of K-Cups, the pods compatible with Keurig-brand coffee makers. Plaintiffs allege that Keurig unlawfully monopolized the K-Cup market through a multifaceted anticompetitive scheme which includes, among other things, coercing suppliers, distributors, and retailers to enter into unduly restrictive exclusive dealing agreements that have the effect of raising barriers to entry by competitors; pursuing sham patent litigation against competitors; and developing a new model K-Cup brewer with “lock-out” technology designed to prevent cups not manufactured by Keurig from working with the brewer. The case has survived a motion to dismiss, and is ongoing before the trial court.
Similar Results
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.