- Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
- 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
- Health Care Litigation
- Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
- Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation
- Mass Tort Attorneys
- Medical Malpractice Attorneys
- Personal Injury Attorneys
- Telecommunications Litigation and Arbitration
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Disputes
Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP®
Ediscovery, Applied Science and Economics, and Litigation Support Solutions
-
May 12, 2022Robins Kaplan Practice Group, Attorney Recognized in Elite Trial Lawyers Awards
-
May 9, 2022Six Partners Recognized as “IP Stars” by Managing Intellectual Property
-
May 4, 2022Robins Kaplan LLP Relocates Silicon Valley Office
-
May 20, 2022Massachusetts Black Lawyers Association Gala
-
May 23, 2022IPWatchdog Patent Litigation Masters™ 2022
-
May 24, 2022Intellectual Property and Innovation Summit, USA
-
May 5, 2022Antitrust Law As A Tool Against Privacy Abuses
-
First QuarterANDA Litigation Settlements
-
First QuarterNew ANDA Cases
-
May 18, 2022Connecticut Becomes Fifth US State to Pass Comprehensive Consumer Privacy Law
-
May 18, 2022Allianz Unit Pleads Guilty, Fined $6B Over Securities Fraud
-
May 17, 2022Abbott Labs Strikes Deal with FDA to Resume Baby Formula Production in U.S.
Find additional firm contact information for press inquiries.
Find resources to help navigate legal and business complexities.
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.