Christopher S. Yates is a partner in the San Francisco office of Latham & Watkins, and is Vice Chair of the firm's Global Antitrust & Competition Practice.
For 20 years, Mr. Yates has litigated and tried antitrust cases and other complex litigation matters. Many of the cases he has handled involve alleged classes; he has successfully opposed certification of classes of both businesses and consumers. In addition to his recognition in Legal500, Mr. Yates is ranked in Chambers USA, with clients noting that he is “excellent” and has a “fine reputation” in the area of antitrust law.
Mr. Yates has successfully represented clients such as Apple, Emerson Electric, Orbitz, the United States Soccer Federation, Alcatel-Lucent, Guitar Center, Genentech, and Oracle in trial courts throughout the country. As an example, he served as one of the trial counsel for Oracle Corporation in Latham's successful defense of a lawsuit brought by the Department of Justice, named by the National Law Journal as the Top Defense Win of 2004.
Mr. Yates has also successfully argued before a variety of appellate courts including the 9th United States Circuit Court of Appeals. He also advises clients on issues related to standard setting organizations.
While at Columbia University School of Law, Mr. Yates was a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar.
Mr. Yates' experience includes representing:
- Apple in numerous matters.
- Alcatel-Lucent in the successful defense of a case in the Eastern District of Texas alleging that the company and other members of the 3GPP standard setting organization conspired in violation of the Sherman Act by agreeing to remove the plaintiff's technology from the 3GPP standard. The 5th Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Alcatel-Lucent.
- CooperVision, Inc., a leading manufacturer of contact lenses, in multidistrict litigation alleging that CooperVision conspired with other contact lens manufacturers and with the leading distributor of contact lenses to implement Unilateral Pricing Policies.
- Emerson Electric in litigation alleging that Emerson monopolized the market for garbage waste disposers and also in litigation alleging that Emerson and other manufacturers unlawfully boycotted an innovative technology. The first matter resolved without any payment by Emerson and Emerson’s motion to dismiss the second matter was granted with prejudice.
- Genentech against allegations by MedImmune that a settlement agreement between Genentech and another biotechnology company was a collusive, anticompetitive agreement designed to extend a patent monopoly. Summary judgment was granted in favor of Genentech on all of plaintiff’s antitrust claims (brought under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act).
- Guitar Center in multidistrict antitrust litigation alleging that Guitar Center orchestrated a conspiracy among manufacturers of musical instruments to fix resale prices through minimum advertised pricing programs. Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice, and was affirmed before the Ninth Circuit.
- NorthBay Healthcare against allegations that NorthBay conspired with other hospitals to exclude a cardiovascular surgeon from the market.
- Oracle Corporation
- As one of its trial counsel in Latham's successful defense of a lawsuit brought by the Department of Justice to enjoin Oracle’s acquisition of PeopleSoft, named by the National Law Journal as the Top Defense Win of 2004.
- In successfully defending antitrust claims brought by unauthorized service providers of Solaris servers and in obtaining judgments for over US$60 million for the service providers’ theft of software patches.
- In prosecuting claims against Hewlett Packard arising from HP’s theft of copyrighted Solaris software patches.
- In litigation commenced by American Airlines alleging that Orbitz and Travelport entered into an unlawful exclusive dealing contract. All exclusive dealing claims were dismissed with prejudice.
- In obtaining dismissal of multidistrict litigation alleging that Orbitz and other online travel companies conspired and entered into resale price maintenance agreements with hotel chains.
- The United States Soccer Federation in litigation brought by a promoter claiming that the Federation and Major League Soccer entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted and the testimony of plaintiff's expert (deposed by Mr. Yates) was excluded on Daubert grounds.
- Waddell & Reed in obtaining dismissal of a complaint alleging that W&R and boxing manager Al Haymon entered into an unlawful conspiracy; after granting defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to amend, the claims against W&R were dismissed in their entirety without leave to amend in what was called an “unequivocal win” by The American Lawyer’s Litigation Daily.