Paul H. Saint-Antoine

Partner
paul.saint-antoine dbr.com
Phone: (215) 988-2990 (215) 988-2990
Fax: (215) 988-2757

About

Paul H. Saint-Antoine is an experienced litigator and best known for his work defending companies sued under the federal and state antitrust laws. He co-chairs the firm's Antitrust Group.

In addition to his experience in federal civil enforcement actions, Paul has represented a broad range of businesses in private antitrust litigation, extending to products and services in the pharmaceutical, computer, software, paper, telecommunications, energy, transportation, insurance and healthcare sectors.

Paul has also counseled clients on a comprehensive set of antitrust issues, and he has regularly served as an antitrust monitor at trade association meetings. Much of his counseling work concerns intellectual property, and Paul has frequently provided antitrust advice related to IP licensing and standard setting.

Experience

Paul has litigated a wide range of antitrust disputes, covering charges of price fixing, price discrimination, monopolization and attempted monopolization, unlawful tying and bundling, anticompetitive distribution agreements, unlawful patent settlements, group boycotts, and unlawful merger and acquisition agreements.

His representative matters include:

  • Counsel to a large health care company and liaison counsel for defendants in an antitrust class action involving allegations of price fixing. In July 2018, the district court granted preliminary approval to a class action settlement. In re Blood Reagents Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.).
  • Co-counsel to pharmaceutical company and liaison counsel for defendants in antitrust class action involving claims of anticompetitive patent settlements brought by direct and indirect purchasers of cholesterol medication. In re Niaspan Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.).
  • Co-counsel for pharmaceutical company in enforcement action alleging violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act by brand name and generic manufacturers of testosterone medication. The district court dismissed the conspiracy claim, and the case proceeded to trial on a theory of “sham” patent litigation. Federal Trade Commission v. AbbVie, Inc. (E.D. Pa.). The judgment is on appeal to the Third Circuit.
  • Counsel for plaintiff wireless phone manufacturer in antitrust monopolization claim, alleging anticompetitive conduct by holder of patents declared to be essential to certain cellular standards. Settled. Microsoft Mobile, Inc., et al. v. InterDigital, Inc., et al. (D. Del.).
  • Counsel to pharmaceutical company and co-counsel to a pharmacy benefits manager in antitrust class action, alleging unlawful monopsony conduct in drug reimbursement rates. In re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.).
  • Counsel to pharmaceutical company in California Superior Court, involving nationwide price-fixing allegations against numerous brand name drug manufacturers. Summary judgment granted to defendants on all counts, and decision upheld on appeal. Clayworth v. Pfizer, et al. (Cal. Sup. Ct.).
  • Counsel to a distributor of dental products in antitrust class action stemming from a DOJ enforcement action. The case involved allegedly unlawful exclusive distribution agreements. In re Dentsply Antitrust Litigation (D. Del.). Dismissal affirmed by Third Circuit.
  • Counsel to chemical company in litigation alleging an agreement to suppress generic competition in cough and cold medication. Summary judgment in favor of defendants on all antitrust claims. Hi-Tech Pharmacal v. Jame Fine Chemical and Carter Wallace (D.N.J.).
  • Counsel for trade association in antitrust action alleging unlawful exclusionary conduct. Settled. IDT Corporation, et al. v. Building Owners and Manager Association International, et al. (D.N.J.).
  • Counsel for hospital system and affiliated ambulance service in Section 1 tying and monopolization case. Offer of judgment accepted by the plaintiff. Med Alert Ambulance Inc. v. Atlantic Health System Inc., et al. (D.N.J.).
  • Co-counsel for leading paper manufacturer in price-fixing class action involving Oriented Strand Board. Settled. In re OSB Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.).
  • Counsel for leading paper manufacturer in price-fixing class action and in related opt-out litigation. Settled. In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.).
  • Co-counsel for athletic association in a Sherman Act case brought by owners of for-profit basketball camps; summary judgement granted in favor of defendant. Pocono Invitational Sports Camp, Inc., et al. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (E.D. Pa.).

The firm has extensive experience in class action litigation throughout the country, and Paul has served as defense counsel in some of the largest antitrust class actions in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and District of Delaware.

His representative matters include:

  • In re Blood Reagents Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.)
  • In re Niaspan Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.)
  • In re Dentsply Antitrust Litigation (D. Del.)
  • In re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.)
  • In re Oriented Strand Brand Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.)
  • In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa.)

In addition, Paul has handled a number of appeals in class actions, including antitrust matters before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. These include:

  • Paul argued an appeal of a class certification decision on behalf of a leading health care company. The Third Circuit, in vacating the district court’s order, held for the first time that: “a plaintiff cannot rely on challenged expert testimony, when critical to class certification, to demonstrate conformity with Rule 23 unless the plaintiff also demonstrates, and the trial court finds, that the testimony satisfies the standard set out in Daubert.” Id. at 187. In re Blood Reagents Antitrust Litigation, 783 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 2015)
  • Paul argued on behalf of a group of dental dealers, in an appeal of a dismissal order entered in their favor. In affirming the dismissal, the Third Circuit agreed with the district court that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged a “hub and spoke” conspiracy. Id. at 257 (“The Plaintiffs have failed to allege any facts plausibly suggesting a unity of purpose, a common design and understanding, or a meeting of the minds between and among Dentsply and all of the dealers.”). In re Dentsply Antitrust Litigation, 602 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2010)

Recognitions

Chambers USA, Pennsylvania, Antitrust (2003–2018)
"Litigation Star," Benchmark Litigation (2017)
Pro Bono Award, Education Law Center (2016)
Fellow of the American Bar Foundation
Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America

Awards Methodology (www.drinkerbiddle.com/content/awards)

Department co-chair Paul Saint-Antoine of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP is adept at defending clients from the pharmaceutical, technology and energy industries in antitrust disputes. Peers state that he is ‘very smart, knows the law as a whole and has good judgment.’

Chambers USA (2018)

Paul Saint-Antoine of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP continues to be recognized for his defense of clients in connection with civil antitrust litigation. Sources affirm that he is ‘extraordinarily competent,’ ‘incredibly smart,’ and ‘very good at synthesizing complicated material into very strong and direct arguments.’

Chambers USA (2017)

Credentials

Bar Admissions

  • New Jersey
  • Pennsylvania

Education

  • Columbia Law School, J.D., 1989
  • Kenyon College, A.B., 1986, summa cum laude

Court Admissions

  • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan
  • U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey
  • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
  • New Jersey Supreme Court
  • Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Organizations

  • Public Interest Law Center, Board Member (2006–Present)
  • American Bar Association
    • Civil Practice and Procedure Committee of the Antitrust Section, Vice Chair
    • Intellectual Property Committee of the Antitrust Section (Past Co-Chair)
  • Philadelphia Bar Association