Aton Arbisser

Partner, Co-Chair, Litigation Department – Los Angeles
aarbisser@kayescholer.com

Los Angeles
T: (310) 788-1015 F: (310) 229-1815

Aton Arbisser is the Co-Chair of the Litigation Department of Kaye Scholer LLP's Los Angeles office and part of the firm's Antitrust and Products Liability groups. MEHR

Mr. Arbisser’s practice encompasses a broad range of complex litigations. He has been nationally recognized for his successes in defending pharmaceutical companies in product liability cases and related consumer class actions. In the PPA products liability litigation, co-chaired the PPA joint defense team on experts and science issues, defeated a class action seeking refunds on millions of dollars of product containing PPA that had been withdrawn from the market, won the first-in-the-nation PPA trial, O'Neill, et al. v. Novartis Consumer Health, Inc., JCCP-4166 (L.A. Super. Ct. Jan. 22, 2004), and then successfully argued the appeal from the jury verdict for Novartis Consumer Health, Inc. Both the Daily Journal and the National Law Journal selected this verdict as one of the “Top 10 Verdicts of 2004.” Mr. Arbisser was also recognized as one of California’s leading practitioners in the Antitrust field and is cited in the Who’sWhoLegal: California 2009 publication.

Mr. Arbisser began his career as one of the last proteges of Professor Milton Handler, the founder of the antitrust practice at Kaye Scholer. As an antitrust lawyer, Mr. Arbisser has won cases at both the trial and appellate levels, in both federal and state court, including, in California v. Texaco Inc., convincing the California Supreme Court that the state’s antitrust laws did not apply to a multibillion-dollar merger. He has also successfully defended or resolved numerous antitrust class actions, and counsels clients on a wide range of antitrust, intellectual property and advertising issues.

A frequent lecturer and author, Mr. Arbisser has appeared at many speaking engagements and published numerous articles in the area of antitrust law.

> Representative Matters (Show All)

Centerprise Int'l, Ltd. v. Micron Tech., Inc., 538 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2008) (affirming dismissal of putative class action on behalf of foreign purchasers of allegedly price fixed product)

Carter v. Novartis Consumer Health, Inc., 582 F. Supp2d 1271(C.D. Cal. 2008) (granting dismissal of putative class action seeking refunds for all sales of children’s cough cold products)

Clayworth v. Pfizer Inc., 165 Cal. App. 4th 209 (2008) (affirming summary judgment for defendants in price fixing cases; establishing “pass-on” defense under California antitrust law)

In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litigation, 516 F. Supp. 2d 1072 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (barring indirect purchaser claims by computer purchasers where alleged price fixing was only on component)

O’Neill v. Novartis Consumer Health, Inc., 147 Cal. App. 4th 1388 (2007) (affirming double defense judgment after trial in product liability case)

Kobar v. Novartis Corp., 378 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (D. Ariz. 2005) (granting partial summary judgment on a punitive damages claim in product liability case)

Nodine v. Shiley Inc., 240 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming summary judgment of product liability claim based upon statute of limitations)

In re Intuit Privacy Litig., 138 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (dismissing privacy claims relating to use of cookies on popular web site)

Centerprise Int'l, Ltd. v. Micron Tech., Inc., 538 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2008) (affirming dismissal of putative class action on behalf of foreign purchasers of allegedly price fixed product)

Carter v. Novartis Consumer Health, Inc., 582 F. Supp2d 1271(C.D. Cal. 2008) (granting dismissal of putative class action seeking refunds for all sales of children’s cough cold products)

Clayworth v. Pfizer Inc., 165 Cal. App. 4th 209 (2008) (affirming summary judgment for defendants in price fixing cases; establishing “pass-on” defense under California antitrust law)

O’Neill v. Novartis Consumer Health, Inc., 147 Cal. App. 4th 1388 (2007) (affirming double defense judgment after trial in product liability case)

Kobar v. Novartis Corp., 378 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (D. Ariz. 2005) (granting partial summary judgment on a punitive damages claim in product liability case)

Nodine v. Shiley Inc., 240 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming summary judgment of product liability claim based upon statute of limitations)

In re Intuit Privacy Litig., 138 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (dismissing privacy claims relating to use of cookies on popular web site)

Vestal v. Shiley Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. Lexis 21566 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (granting summary judgment on product liability claim on statute of repose)

Mission Resources v. Texaco Inc., 94 F.3d 652 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming defense judgment after jury trial)

Greenberg v. Wolfberg, 890 P.2d 895 (Okla. S. Ct. 1995) (favorable response to certified questions relating to application of statute of limitations to malicious prosecution claim)

Adray v. Adry-Mart, Inc., 76 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming defense jury verdict on trademark infringement claim)

Ultramar, Inc. v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. 17 Cal. App. 4th 689 (1993), (affirming writ enjoining enforcement of rule that would have required refinery to spend $100 million)

Auwood v. Harry Brandt Booking Office, Inc., 850 F.2d 884 (2d Cir. 1988) (affirming nominal damages in jury trial for antitrust violation)

California v. Texaco Inc., 46 Cal. 3d 1147 (1988) (holding that California antitrust law did not regulate a $10 billion merger)

Kaye Scholer

Beratungsschwerpunkte

Ausbildung

Zulassungen

Mitgliedschaften