This site makes use of Javascript, please enable your web browser to allow Javascript. Thank you.
Aton Arbisser

Aton Arbisser

Complex Commercial Litigation Department
Head, Litigation Department in Los Angeles

T: +1 310 788 1015
F: +1 310 229 1815

icon 下载联系方式



  • University of California, Berkeley
    JD/MA, Joint Degree Law & Economics, 1982
  • Princeton University
    AB, magna cum laude, 1978


  • California
  • New York
  • US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • US District Court, Central District of California
  • US District Court, Eastern District of California
  • US District Court, Northern District of California
  • US District Court, Southern District of California
  • US District Court, Eastern District of New York
  • US District Court, Southern District of New York


  • State Bar of California (Executive Committee Antitrust and State Unfair Competition Section 2012-2015)

  • American Bar Association (Vice-Chairman, Robinson-Patman Act Committee, Antitrust Section, 1993-94; Editorial Board, Antitrust Law Development, Antitrust Section, 1989–92)

Aton Arbisser is the head of the Litigation Department of Kaye Scholer’s Los Angeles office and part of the firm’s Antitrust and Product Liability Groups.

Aton was drawn to Kaye Scholer by its long tradition as an antitrust powerhouse. As an antitrust lawyer, Aton has won cases at both the trial and appellate levels, in both federal and state court. Early in his career he wrote the briefs that convinced the California Supreme Court that the state’s antitrust laws did not apply to a multibillion-dollar merger. In 2012, he successfully argued the appeal on behalf of 15 pharmaceutical manufacturers accused of conspiring to fix the prices, defending the summary judgment he and Partner Saul Morgenstern had won in the trial court on behalf of the industry. Aton also has successfully defended or resolved numerous antitrust class actions in federal court and indirect purchaser cases in state court. In addition, Aton counsels clients on a wide range of antitrust issues. Aton has been recognized as one of California’s leading practitioners in the antitrust field by Best Lawyers in America (2007-2017), including “Antitrust Lawyer of the Year-Los Angeles” in 2015 and 2017, and Who’s Who Legal: California.

Aton’s practice has expanded far beyond his antitrust roots to encompass a broad range of complex litigations, including consumer fraud class actions and mass torts. He has been nationally recognized for his successes in defending pharmaceutical companies in product liability cases and related consumer class actions. In the phenylpropanolamine (PPA) products liability litigation, he chaired the 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 and then successfully argued the appeal. The National Law Journal selected the verdict as one of the “Top 10 Verdicts of 2004.” Aton won similar recognition for another PPA trial in 2006.

A frequent lecturer and author in the areas of antitrust and class action law, Aton was recently appointed to the Executive Committee of the Antitrust and Unfair Competition Section of the California State Bar.

Reported Cases

  • In re Avon Anti-Aging Skincare Creams and Products Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, 2015 WL 5730022 (S.D.N.Y.) (denying certification of nationwide class of purchasers of anti-aging products based upon allegedly false claims of wrinkle reduction).

  • Yingst v. Novartis AG, 2014 WL 6791423 (D.N.J. Nov. 24, 2014) (granting motion to dismiss consumer class action based upon differential pricing of products with identical ingredients).

  • Clayworth v. Pfizer Inc., 2012 WL 3596452 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 2012) (affirming summary judgment dismissing alleged price fixing conspiracy brought by 15 pharmacies against the major pharmaceutical companies).

  • Mag Instruments, Inc. v. The Coleman Co., 408 Fed.Appx. 363 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (affirming summary judgment that held that patent was invalid)
  • 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).
  • 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 website).
  • 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).
  • Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. v. Equit. Life Assur. Socy. of the U.S., 143 A.D.2d 611, 533 N.Y.S.2d 426 (App Div, 1st Dept 1988) (reversing multimillion verdict against his client).
  • California v. Texaco Inc., 46 Cal. 3d 1147 (1988) (holding that California antitrust law did not regulate a $10 billion merger).