Howard Ullman, of counsel in the San Francisco office, is a member of the Litigation Group. He focuses his practice on antitrust, trade regulation and unfair competition issues. He has extensive experience advising on distribution law and distribution system issues (including pricing issues, non-price restraints and dealer termination issues). He routinely addresses and counsels on the antitrust / intellectual property interface.
Mr. Ullman represents Nanya Technology Corporation and Nanya Technology Corporation USA in the national DRAM antitrust price-fixing cases. He has also worked on antitrust cases for PG&E Corporation, Equifax, One Technologies, and a number of other companies. He regularly counsels companies on competition issues, including Robinson-Patman Act issues and market concentration issues. He has worked on a number of Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code Section 17200 (unfair competition) litigations. He has also worked on a number of antitrust-healthcare related matters.
Mr. Ullman currently is working on antitrust cases in the life insurance industry, for Microsoft Corp. in connection with intellectual property issues, and for a supplier of industrial equipment (commercial scales). He is also working on cases involving below-cost pricing in the retail gasoline industry. He recently worked on a Section 2 case for a pool products manufacturer that resolved favorably.
Mr. Ullman also has substantial experience in the defense of Proposition 65 cases alleging consumer exposures to cadmium, lead, mercury and benzo(a)pyrene. He also has briefed and argued numerous appeals in state courts and in the Ninth Circuit.
In 2004, he briefed and successfully argued a case of first impression in the Washington Supreme Court concerning the enforceability of arbitration provisions.
He formerly served as an adjunct instructor of law at the University of Cincinnati.
Please do not include any confidential, secret or otherwise sensitive information concerning any potential or actual legal matter in this e-mail message. Unsolicited e-mails do not create an attorney-client relationship and confidential or secret information included in such e-mails cannot be protected from disclosure. Orrick does not have a duty or a legal obligation to keep confidential any information that you provide to us. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.
By clicking "OK" below, you understand and agree that Orrick will have no duty to keep confidential any information you provide.