Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
- Law360
- Law360 UK
- Law360 Pulse
- Law360 Employment Authority
- Law360 Tax Authority
- Law360 Insurance Authority
- Law360 Real Estate Authority
- Law360 Healthcare Authority
- Law360 Bankruptcy Authority
- Products
- Lexis®
- Law360 In-Depth
- Law360 Podcasts
- Rankings
- Leaderboard Analytics
- Regional Powerhouses
- Law360's MVPs
- Women in Law Report
- Law360 400
- Diversity Snapshot
- Practice Groups of the Year
- Rising Stars
- Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar
- Sections
- Adv. Search & Platform Tools
- About all sections
- Browse all sections
- Banking
- Bankruptcy
- Class Action
- Competition
- Employment
- Energy
- Expert Analysis
- Insurance
- Intellectual Property
- Product Liability
- Securities
- Beta Tools
- Track docs
- Track attorneys
- Track judges
Portable Power, Inc. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc. et al
Case Number:
5:23-cv-02091
See also:
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Multi Party Litigation:
Class Action
Judge:
Firms
- Berger Montague
- Gibbs Mura
- Gibson Dunn
- Jackson Lewis PC
- Latham & Watkins
- Schneider Wallace
- Weintraub Tobin
- West & Dunn
Companies
Sectors & Industries:
-
February 17, 2026
Battery Co. Calls Energizer's Trade Secret Claims 'Meritless'
A California battery company accusing Energizer and Walmart of colluding to fix retail battery prices said Energizer's counterclaims of inducing an account manager to steal trade secrets were "tactical and meritless" and has asked a federal judge to dismiss them.
-
February 12, 2024
Energizer, Walmart Can't Ditch Battery Pricing Collusion Suits
Energizer and Walmart cannot escape a trio of class actions accusing the battery manufacturer of giving the big box chain almost complete control over the retail price its batteries are sold for and forbidding other retailers from undercutting them.
-
October 27, 2023
Walmart Rips 'Implausible' Battery Pricing Collusion Claims
Walmart and Energizer have fired back at a trio of class action complaints, telling a San Jose federal court that the suits are built upon baseless and "implausible" inferences and that the plaintiffs' opposition to the companies' dismissal motions rely on un-pled assertions.