MULTIPLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. UNDER ARMOUR, INC

  1. November 15, 2024

    Wilson Sonsini Atty To Produce Docs In Under Armour Row

    Emails sent by a Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati attorney to employees of a Pittsburgh-area minor league baseball team he co-owns are not covered by attorney-client privilege and should be provided to Under Armour as part of discovery in an antitrust suit filed against the sports apparel giant, a Pennsylvania federal judge ruled this week.

  2. August 20, 2024

    Under Armour Looks To End Case From Ex-Supplier

    Under Armour Inc. asked a Pennsylvania federal court to end a former supplier's claims that it blocked competition for recovery-enhancing clothing, saying the company is not a competitor and has no evidence supporting its antitrust or other claims.

  3. December 15, 2022

    Under Armour Backs Wilson Sonsini Atty 'Investor' Subpoena

    Under Armour denied any intent to "harass" a Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC attorney for his role representing antitrust foe Multiple Energy Technologies, arguing in Pennsylvania federal court that the sporting apparel giant properly subpoenaed the attorney for his role as "a significant investor" in MET.

  4. December 01, 2022

    Wilson Sonsini Atty Blasts Under Armour Docs 'Harassment'

    A Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC attorney accused Under Armour of harassing him and the firm on Wednesday, seeking to quash a subpoena in an antitrust case the sportswear giant says is based not on his work for plaintiff Multiple Energy Technologies but his partial ownership in it.

  5. June 23, 2022

    Under Armour Wants Proof Antitrust Litigant Is A Competitor

    Athletic clothing maker Under Armour told a Pennsylvania federal court that a company suing it over alleged anti-competitive behavior in the bioceramic "recovery enhancing" apparel market must produce evidence that the plaintiff actually makes the clothing in question, not just one component of the fabric.

  6. February 04, 2022

    Textile Co. Finally Lands Hit In Round 3 Of Under Armour Row

    A textile manufacturer has finally hit upon the right definition of the "recovery-enhancing bioceramics" market that activewear giant Under Armour Inc. has allegedly muscled it out of, a Pennsylvania federal judge ruled.

  7. June 29, 2021

    Under Armour Beats Activewear Tech Antitrust Suit, For Now

    A Pennsylvania federal judge on Tuesday again tossed claims that Under Armour broke antitrust laws, saying a manufacturer of "bioceramic" textile treatments — intended to help athletes' muscles recover faster — still hasn't adequately defined the relevant market, but will give the company one more chance to plead its case.

  8. April 13, 2021

    Under Armour Says Mushy Market Label Dooms Antitrust Suit

    A Pennsylvania manufacturer can't bring antitrust claims against Under Armour Inc. for allegedly freezing it out of the market for specialty clothing because its definition of that market was a broad and "unworkable muddle," Under Armour told a federal court.

  9. March 04, 2021

    Antitrust Claims Against Under Armour Get Benched

    A Pittsburgh federal judge benched claims that Under Armour Inc. had broken false advertising and antitrust laws because a manufacturer of "bioceramic" textile treatments — intended to help athletes' muscles recover faster — hadn't adequately shown that it was a direct competitor in a relevant market.

  10. February 23, 2021

    Under Armour Says Activewear Tech Co. Isn't Its Competitor

    Under Armour Inc. says a Pennsylvania manufacturer of a textile spray intended to improve athletes' muscle recovery can't sue Under Armour for anti-competitive behavior because it is not a direct competitor, an attorney for the athletic wear company told a federal judge Tuesday.

Hello! I'm Law360's automated support bot.

How can I help you today?

For example, you can type:
  • I forgot my password
  • I took a free trial but didn't get a verification email
  • How do I sign up for a newsletter?
Ask a question!