WT/DS162/R/Add.1 Page 93
for an importer under the 1916 Act can arise only from injury to the firms with which it competes, domestic firm liability under the Robinson‑Patman Act can arise both from that type of injury and from injury to one or more downstream purchasers. As a consequence, cases involving secondary line liability ‑ as well as those involving primary line liability ‑ are relevant to any comparison of the Robinson‑Patman Act to the 1916 Act. Since the 1993 Supreme Court decision in Brooke Group, there have been more than forty reported Court of Appeals and District Court opinions in more than forty different cases that have addressed allegations that the price discrimination provisions of the Robinson‑Patman Act have been violated, including cases leading to more than ten Court of Appeals and District Court decisions in 1998 alone.311 By comparison, only two District Court decisions ‑ at very early stages in their respective proceedings ‑ have during that same period addressed allegations that the 1916 Act has been violated. This vast disparity alone establishes that the price discrimination proscriptions of the Robinson‑Patman Act create far more danger of liability for domestic firms than the 1916 Act creates for importers, and therefore treat domestic firms less favourably than the 1916 Act treats importers.
The United States maintains that that conclusion remains valid even if one considers only the number of primary line price discrimination cases since Brooke Group. In particular, since that decision, four Court of Appeals decisions ‑ arising from three cases addressing allegations of primary line price discrimination ‑ have been issued.312 To the extent that the success of a particular case can be measured by the level of the federal court system to which it rises, all of these lawsuits alleging primary line discrimination were more successful than either of the two 1916 Act lawsuits. Moreover, fourteen District Court decisions addressing primary line discrimination - in addition to those which led to some of the above Court of Appeals decisions ‑ have been issued.313 Although most of these
311 The United States refers to, e.g., Godfrey v. Pulitzer Publishing Co., 161 F.3d 1137 (8th Cir. 1998); George Haug Co. v. Rolls Royce Motor Cars, Inc., 148 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 1998); Kentmaster Manufacturing Co. v. Jarvis Products Corp., 146 F.3d 691 (9th Cir. 1998), amended, No. 96‑56341, 1999 WL 19636 (9th Cir. Jan. 20, 1999); Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 145 F.3d 320 (5th Cir. 1998); Sally Bridges v. MacLean‑Stevens Studios, Inc., 35 F.Supp. 2d 20, p. 28 (D. Me. 1998); Malek Wholesaler, Inc. v. First Film Extruding, Ltd., 1998 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 3674 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 20, 1998); City of New York v. Coastal Oil New York, Inc., 1998‑1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 72,087 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); Liberty Lincoln‑Mercury v. Ford Motor Co., 134 F.3d 557 (3d Cir. 1998); Hoover Color Corp. v. Bayer Corp., 24 F. Supp. 2d 571 (W.D. Va. 1998); Bell v. Fur Breeders Agricultural Cooperative, 3 F. Supp. 2d 1241 (D. Utah 1998); Precision Printing Co. v. Unisource Worldwide, Inc., 993 F. Supp. 338 (W.D. Pa. 1998); Rebel Oil Co., Inc. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 957 F.Supp. 1184, p. 1192 (D. Nev. 1997), aff’d, 146 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 541 (1998).
312 Kentmaster Manufacturing Co. v. Jarvis Products Corp., 146 F.3d 691, 694‑95 (9th Cir. 1998), amended, No. 96‑56341, 1999 WL 19636 (9th Cir. Jan. 20, 1999); Rebel Oil Co. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 146 F.3d 1088, p. 1091 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 541 (1998), and 51 F.3d 1421, p. 1429 (9th Cir. 1995); Coastal Fuels of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Caribbean Petroleum Corp., 79 F.3d 182, p. 188 (1st Cir. 1996).
313 The United States refers to J&S Oil, Inc. v. Irving Oil Corp., 1999‑2 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 72,615 (D.Me. August 4, 1999), paras. 85551‑54; Wynn ex rel. Alabama v. Philip Morris Inc., 51 F.Supp. 2d 1232, p. 1247 (N.D. Ala. 1999); Malek Wholesaler, Inc. v. First Film Extruding, Ltd., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3674 (N.D. Ill. March 24, 1998); Taylor Publishing Company v. Jostens, Inc., 36 F.Supp. 2d 360, pp. 372‑73 (E.D. Tex. 1999); Sally Bridges v. MacLean‑Stevens Studios, Inc., 35 F.Supp. 2d 20, pp. 27‑28 (D. Me. 1998); City of New York v. Coastal Oil New York, Inc., 1998‑1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 72,087 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); Stearns Airport Equip. Co. v. FMC Corp., 977 F.Supp. 1269, p. 1273 (N.D. Tex. 1997); Cardinal Indus., Inc. v. Pressman Toy Corp., 1997‑1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 71,738 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 1996); Zeller Corp., 1997‑1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 71,805 (N.D. Ohio June 25, 1996); Anti‑Monopoly, Inc. v. Hasbro, Inc., 958 F.Supp. 895, p. 906 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), and 1995‑2 Trade Cas. ¶ 71,095 (S.D.N.Y. 1995), para. 75,241; Clark v. Flow Measurement, Inc., 948 F.Supp. 519, pp. 522‑29 (D. S.C. 1996); C.B. Trucking, Inc. v. Waste Management, Inc. and WMX, 944 F.Supp. 66, pp. 68‑69 (D. Mass. 1996); En Vogue v. UK Optical, Ltd. and British Optical Import Company, 843 F.Supp. 838, pp. 845‑47 (E.D.N.Y. 1994); Lago & Sons Dairy, Inc. v. H.P. Hood, Inc., 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12909 (D. N.H. 1994).