{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-24-4470-2026-01-08","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-24-4470-2026-01-08)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-20","fingerprint":"ewai:us:49b4aa","proof":"sha256:3b7162d227656b6edf65117c37aba59e78c37c43cd4bdab96807b255855951de","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:ca9-24-4470-2026-01-08","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"FOR PUBLICATION","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC;","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(THAILAND) LTD.; SEAGATE","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"HEADQUARTERS PTE, LTD;","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY","paragraphs":["para_10","para_11","para_12"]},{"title":"NHK SPRING CO., LTD.; NHK","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"INTERNATIONAL","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"CORPORATION; NHK SPRING","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(THAILAND) CO., LTD.; NAT","paragraphs":["para_17"]},{"title":"LTD.; NAT PERIPHERAL (H.K.)","paragraphs":["para_19","para_20"]},{"title":"No. 24-4470","paragraphs":["para_22"]},{"title":"3:19-md-02918-","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"MMC","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"OPINION","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Appeal from the United States District Court","paragraphs":["para_27"]},{"title":"Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding","paragraphs":["para_29"]},{"title":"Argued and Submitted June 6, 2025","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"San Francisco, California","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Filed January 8, 2026","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Before: Consuelo M. Callahan and Kenneth K. Lee, Circuit","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Judges, and Scott H. Rash, District Judge.*","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Opinion by Judge Lee","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"SUMMARY**","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Antitrust","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The panel vacated the district court’s partial summary","paragraphs":["para_39","para_40","para_41"]},{"title":"LLC, an American company, and two Seagate foreign","paragraphs":["para_43"]},{"title":"The Seagate plaintiffs sought to bring antitrust claims","paragraphs":["para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53"]},{"title":"SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD. 3","paragraphs":["para_55","para_56"]},{"title":"States. The district court ruled that the Sherman Act did not","paragraphs":["para_58"]},{"title":"The panel held that Seagate alleged a viable theory of","paragraphs":["para_60"]},{"title":"Improvements Act, which provides that U.S. antitrust laws","paragraphs":["para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77"]},{"title":"The panel remanded to the district court to determine","paragraphs":["para_79","para_80","para_81"]},{"title":"COUNSEL","paragraphs":["para_83"]},{"title":"New York; David R. Carpenter and Nicole M. Baade, Sidley","paragraphs":["para_85"]},{"title":"Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, D.C.; Robert N. Hochman","paragraphs":["para_87"]},{"title":"Illinois; Steffen N. Johnson and John B. Kenney, Wilson","paragraphs":["para_89"]},{"title":"Evans-Aziz, Kenneth R. O'Rourke, and Jeff","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"VanHooreweghe, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, San","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Francisco, California; Michael W. McConnell, Wilson","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Palo Alto, California; for","paragraphs":["para_94","para_95","para_96"]},{"title":"Washington, D.C.; Navi S. Dhillon, Paul Hastings LLP, San","paragraphs":["para_98","para_99","para_100"]},{"title":"Minneapolis, Minnesota; Paul J. Riehle, Faegre Drinker","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Biddle & Reath LLP, San Francisco, California; for Amicus","paragraphs":["para_103"]},{"title":"Kathleen W. Bradish and Randy Stutz, American Antitrust","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Institute, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae American","paragraphs":["para_106","para_107"]},{"title":"Los Angeles, California, for Amicus Curiae Professor","paragraphs":["para_109"]},{"title":"SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD. 5","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"OPINION","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"LEE, Circuit Judge:","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"American antitrust laws broadly prohibit anticompetitive","paragraphs":["para_114"]},{"title":"Congress, however, largely closed our courthouse doors to","paragraphs":["para_116"]},{"title":"But it carved out two narrow exceptions under the Foreign","paragraphs":["para_118","para_119","para_120"]},{"title":"(1) involves goods imported into the United States that","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Americans buy (the “import commerce” exclusion) or","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(2) has a direct effect on domestic commerce that in turn","paragraphs":["para_124","para_125"]},{"title":"In an increasingly globalized economy, it can sometimes","paragraphs":["para_127","para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132"]},{"title":"Spring Co., Ltd. for unlawful price-fixing. In a separate","paragraphs":["para_134","para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138","para_139"]},{"title":"States. The district court thus granted partial summary","paragraphs":["para_141","para_142","para_143"]},{"title":"We vacate the district court’s order because Seagate1 has","paragraphs":["para_145"]},{"title":"FTAIA. According to Seagate’s complaint, NHK’s price-","paragraphs":["para_147","para_148"]},{"title":"Technology LLC. That agreement reflected an artificially","paragraphs":["para_150"]},{"title":"Seagate Technology LLC agreement in turn allegedly set the","paragraphs":["para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161"]},{"title":"BACKGROUND","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"I. Factual Background","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"A. Seagate foreign entities buy SAs from NHK and","paragraphs":["para_165"]},{"title":"Nearly every consumer electronic device needs a way to","paragraphs":["para_167","para_168","para_169"]},{"title":"Seagate Thailand, and Seagate Singapore collectively. But we will refer","paragraphs":["para_171","para_172"]},{"title":"SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD. 7","paragraphs":["para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178"]},{"title":"Technology LLC does not produce all the key components","paragraphs":["para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187"]},{"title":"Reflecting the global nature of commerce today, a","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Seagate hard disk drive is built with parts bought and","paragraphs":["para_190","para_191","para_192"]},{"title":"(Thailand) Ltd (“Seagate Thailand”). There, the suspension","paragraphs":["para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199","para_200"]},{"title":"Headquarters Pte. Ltd. (“Seagate Singapore”) for","paragraphs":["para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205","para_206","para_207"]},{"title":"Seagate buys its suspension assemblies from a few","paragraphs":["para_209","para_210","para_211"]},{"title":"Ltd., a leading Japanese manufacturer of springs and other","paragraphs":["para_213","para_214"]},{"title":"Seagate business” for suspension assembly projects, despite","paragraphs":["para_216"]},{"title":"B. NHK rigs suspension assembly prices based on a","paragraphs":["para_218"]},{"title":"In July 2019, NHK pleaded guilty to criminal price-","paragraphs":["para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223"]},{"title":"NHK’s officers and employees held meetings with another","paragraphs":["para_225","para_226","para_227","para_228","para_229","para_230","para_231","para_232"]},{"title":"States v. NHK Spring Co. Ltd., ECF 25 at 8, No. 2:19-cr-","paragraphs":["para_234"]},{"title":"2 A few SAs are directly imported for testing and product development","paragraphs":["para_236"]},{"title":"SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD. 9","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"NHK’s plea agreement explains that suspension","paragraphs":["para_239","para_240","para_241","para_242"]},{"title":"The “primary purpose” of this conspiracy was to “fix the","paragraphs":["para_244"]},{"title":"United States and elsewhere.” These centralized “pricing","paragraphs":["para_246","para_247","para_248","para_249","para_250","para_251","para_252","para_253"]},{"title":"Management Team (“CMT”) in Minnesota. The foreign","paragraphs":["para_255","para_256","para_257"]},{"title":"Pricing was negotiated by Seagate CMT with suppliers","paragraphs":["para_259","para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263","para_264","para_265"]},{"title":"Quotation.” First, Seagate Technology LLC would send a","paragraphs":["para_267","para_268","para_269","para_270","para_271","para_272","para_273","para_274","para_275","para_276","para_277"]},{"title":"These RFQ responses, called “anticipated pricing","paragraphs":["para_279","para_280","para_281"]},{"title":"RFQ responses for a given Seagate product with his","paragraphs":["para_283","para_284","para_285","para_286","para_287"]},{"title":"RFQ responses. Finally, to entrench this process, NHK’s","paragraphs":["para_289","para_290","para_291","para_292","para_293","para_294","para_295","para_296"]},{"title":"II. Procedural History","paragraphs":["para_298"]},{"title":"Seagate sued in the Northern District of California, alleging","paragraphs":["para_300","para_301","para_302","para_303"]},{"title":"SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD. 11","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Seagate amended its complaint twice, in October 2020 and","paragraphs":["para_306"]},{"title":"While discovery was ongoing, NHK moved for Partial","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Summary Judgment Regarding Foreign Commerce. NHK","paragraphs":["para_309","para_310","para_311","para_312","para_313","para_314","para_315"]},{"title":"(1) involves imported goods that Americans buy or (2) “has","paragraphs":["para_317"]},{"title":"U.S. domestic commerce or certain exports and “such effect","paragraphs":["para_319","para_320","para_321","para_322","para_323"]},{"title":"The district court at first agreed with NHK in part. In its","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"May 15, 2023 order, the court found that most of the","paragraphs":["para_326"]},{"title":"Seagate Singapore never entered the United States at any","paragraphs":["para_328","para_329"]},{"title":"Disk Drive Suspension Assemblies Antitrust Litig. (“In re","paragraphs":["para_331"]},{"title":"Cal. May 15, 2023). But about one-third of Seagate’s","paragraphs":["para_333","para_334","para_335"]},{"title":"FTAIA’s import exclusion only covers conduct involving","paragraphs":["para_337","para_338","para_339","para_340","para_341","para_342"]},{"title":"The district court changed direction when asked by NHK","paragraphs":["para_344","para_345"]},{"title":"States for the import exclusion to apply, and no suspension","paragraphs":["para_347","para_348","para_349","para_350","para_351","para_352","para_353","para_354","para_355"]},{"title":"(quoting In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM)","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Antitrust Litig., 546 F.3d 981, 988 (9th Cir. 2008) (“In re","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"DRAM”)). The district court thus granted NHK’s partial","paragraphs":["para_359"]},{"title":"Finally, the court found Seagate’s Second Amended","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Complaint did not include any “factual allegations that any","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Seagate Plaintiff indirectly purchased an SA or a product","paragraphs":["para_363","para_364","para_365","para_366"]},{"title":"Seagate advances several positions on appeal: (1) that","paragraphs":["para_368","para_369"]},{"title":"Seagate’s antitrust injuries abroad, and (3) that at least a","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD. 13","paragraphs":["para_372"]},{"title":"See 15 U.S.C. § 6a. Seagate also argues that Seagate","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Technology LLC—rather than Seagate Thailand or Seagate","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Singapore—was the “direct purchaser” of all the suspension","paragraphs":["para_376","para_377","para_378","para_379"]},{"title":"DISCUSSION","paragraphs":["para_381","para_382"]},{"title":"986 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). We","paragraphs":["para_384","para_385","para_386","para_387"]},{"title":"States, 265 F.3d 1017, 1021 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation","paragraphs":["para_389","para_390","para_391","para_392","para_393"]},{"title":"I. The FTAIA places geographic limits on the reach of","paragraphs":["para_395"]},{"title":"Congress enacted the FTAIA in 1982 in part to clarify","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"United States antitrust jurisdiction over international","paragraphs":["para_398"]},{"title":"Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764, 796 n.23","paragraphs":["para_400","para_401"]},{"title":"677–78 (9th Cir. 2004). The statute provides that the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Sherman Act:","paragraphs":["para_404","para_405","para_406","para_407","para_408"]},{"title":"(A) on trade or commerce which is","paragraphs":["para_410","para_411","para_412"]},{"title":"(B) on export trade or export","paragraphs":["para_414","para_415","para_416"]},{"title":"(2) such effect gives rise to a claim under","paragraphs":["para_418"]},{"title":"15 U.S.C. § 6a. In other words, the statute generally bars the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Sherman Act from reaching foreign commercial activity, but","paragraphs":["para_421","para_422","para_423","para_424"]},{"title":"(2) sufficiently affects American domestic or (certain)","paragraphs":["para_426","para_427","para_428"]},{"title":"American exporters, not foreign consumers or producers,”","paragraphs":["para_430","para_431"]},{"title":"SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD. 15","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The phrasing of the FTAIA has been called confusing at","paragraphs":["para_434","para_435","para_436","para_437","para_438","para_439","para_440","para_441"]},{"title":"161 (2004) (citing House Report). If a foreign country does","paragraphs":["para_443","para_444","para_445","para_446","para_447"]},{"title":"Congress thus did not expand the purview of our antitrust","paragraphs":["para_449","para_450","para_451","para_452","para_453","para_454","para_455"]},{"title":"States v. Hui Hsiung, 778 F.3d 738, 754 (9th Cir. 2015)","paragraphs":["para_457"]},{"title":"Indeed, there is good reason to be circumspect when it","paragraphs":["para_459","para_460","para_461","para_462","para_463","para_464","para_465","para_466","para_467","para_468","para_469"]},{"title":"Circuit noted, a company cannot “pick and choose from the","paragraphs":["para_471","para_472","para_473","para_474","para_475"]},{"title":"F.3d 816, 822, 827 (7th Cir. 2015); see also Empagran, 542","paragraphs":["para_477"]},{"title":"In short, American antitrust protections apply only when","paragraphs":["para_479","para_480","para_481"]},{"title":"First, “import trade” and “import commerce” are","paragraphs":["para_483"]},{"title":"(i.e., the Sherman Act applies). See 15 U.S.C. § 6a; Hui","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Hsiung, 778 F.3d at 754. For example, if Japanese","paragraphs":["para_486","para_487","para_488","para_489"]},{"title":"Second, the Sherman Act also applies to anticompetitive","paragraphs":["para_491","para_492","para_493","para_494","para_495"]},{"title":"SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD. 17","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"We next turn to whether Seagate meets either the “import","paragraphs":["para_498","para_499"]},{"title":"II. The FTAIA’s “import commerce” exclusion does","paragraphs":["para_501","para_502"]},{"title":"Seagate Thailand and Seagate Singapore bought price-","paragraphs":["para_504","para_505","para_506","para_507","para_508","para_509","para_510","para_511"]},{"title":"But NHK’s price-fixing conduct did not involve “import","paragraphs":["para_513","para_514"]},{"title":"Only the finished hard disk drives were imported into the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"United States. Any trade or commerce involving suspension","paragraphs":["para_517","para_518","para_519"]},{"title":"Seagate does not dispute that none of the suspension","paragraphs":["para_521"]},{"title":"3 Seagate argues that the FTAIA is not relevant here because this case","paragraphs":["para_523","para_524"]},{"title":"Supreme Court held that the FTAIA applied in Empagran even though","paragraphs":["para_526","para_527","para_528","para_529","para_530","para_531","para_532","para_533","para_534","para_535"]},{"title":"Seagate mainly relies on two related arguments to argue","paragraphs":["para_537","para_538","para_539"]},{"title":"FTAIA exempts not only import trade and commerce but","paragraphs":["para_541","para_542","para_543","para_544","para_545","para_546"]},{"title":"These arguments are unconvincing. For starters, we","paragraphs":["para_548","para_549"]},{"title":"READING LAW: THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL TEXTS 69","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(2012). And we have never defined “import trade or","paragraphs":["para_552","para_553","para_554","para_555"]},{"title":"Korean company Samsung. Many of its phones use batteries","paragraphs":["para_557"]},{"title":"Vietnam. We would normally describe Samsung phones as","paragraphs":["para_559","para_560"]},{"title":"SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD. 19","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"In Hui Hsiung, we strongly suggested that the “import","paragraphs":["para_563","para_564"]},{"title":"LCD liquid crystal display panels found in many computer","paragraphs":["para_566","para_567","para_568"]},{"title":"F.3d at 753, we considered only panels that came directly to","paragraphs":["para_570"]},{"title":"755. We repeatedly emphasized that the defendant","paragraphs":["para_572"]},{"title":"States.” Id. And most of all, we explained that even though","paragraphs":["para_574","para_575","para_576"]},{"title":"TFT–LCD panels at [fixed] prices . . . . [and] [i]mportation","paragraphs":["para_578","para_579"]},{"title":"(emphasis added). In other words, the display panels by","paragraphs":["para_581","para_582","para_583","para_584","para_585"]},{"title":"755 (citations omitted). In contrast here, the suspension","paragraphs":["para_587","para_588","para_589"]},{"title":"U.S. nexus to justify the extraterritorial reach of American","paragraphs":["para_591"]},{"title":"True, Hui Hsiung dealt with the sufficiency of an","paragraphs":["para_593","para_594","para_595"]},{"title":"56 & n.8. But nothing in the case suggests that it would","paragraphs":["para_597"]},{"title":"Seagate suggests. It is also true that suspension assemblies","paragraphs":["para_599"]},{"title":"Seagate notes. But Seagate fails to explain why this should","paragraphs":["para_601","para_602"]},{"title":"FTAIA’s import exclusion, seeing as relief may still be","paragraphs":["para_604","para_605"]},{"title":"In sum, Seagate was harmed not in the import trade but","paragraphs":["para_607","para_608","para_609","para_610","para_611"]},{"title":"III. The FTAIA’s “domestic effects” exception might","paragraphs":["para_613","para_614"]},{"title":"The FTAIA has another exception—“domestic","paragraphs":["para_616"]},{"title":"American antitrust law. Foreign non-import commerce can","paragraphs":["para_618"]},{"title":"(1) has a “direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable","paragraphs":["para_620","para_621","para_622"]},{"title":"American antitrust jurisdiction absent a direct, substantial","paragraphs":["para_624","para_625","para_626"]},{"title":"SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD. 21","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The two requirements above are strict by design. A","paragraphs":["para_629","para_630","para_631"]},{"title":"778 F.3d at 758 & n.9. An “effect cannot be ‘direct’ where","paragraphs":["para_633"]},{"title":"379 F.3d at 681. And to “give[] rise to” a Sherman Act claim","paragraphs":["para_635","para_636","para_637","para_638","para_639"]},{"title":"Together, these requirements ensure there is a sufficient","paragraphs":["para_641","para_642","para_643","para_644","para_645"]},{"title":"Sherman Act violation. Put differently, U.S. courts are only","paragraphs":["para_647","para_648","para_649","para_650"]},{"title":"We address the first prong of the domestic effects","paragraphs":["para_652","para_653"]},{"title":"(requiring an adverse effect). Seagate asserts that “NHK","paragraphs":["para_655","para_656","para_657","para_658","para_659"]},{"title":"These facts are largely undisputed. NHK admits in its","paragraphs":["para_661","para_662","para_663","para_664","para_665","para_666","para_667","para_668","para_669"]},{"title":"HDD suspension assemblies.” The parties in their briefing","paragraphs":["para_671","para_672","para_673","para_674"]},{"title":"Quantum, IBM, Fujitsu, Samsung, and Hitachi, during the","paragraphs":["para_676","para_677","para_678","para_679","para_680","para_681","para_682"]},{"title":"NHK admits to fixing prices of suspension assemblies sold","paragraphs":["para_684"]},{"title":"NHK’s actions apparently had a direct, substantial, and","paragraphs":["para_686"]},{"title":"U.S.C. § 6a(1).4","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"4 NHK’s argument that a corrupt U.S. bidding process can only","paragraphs":["para_689","para_690","para_691"]},{"title":"While the actual “stuff” of NHK’s conspiracy (illicit meetings, illegal","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD. 23","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"To be sure, the domestic effect from NHK’s","paragraphs":["para_695"]},{"title":"Technology LLC because it did not buy the suspension","paragraphs":["para_697","para_698","para_699","para_700","para_701"]},{"title":"NHK’s price-fixing apparently had a significant and direct","paragraphs":["para_703","para_704","para_705"]},{"title":"The FTAIA’s statutory language does not require more","paragraphs":["para_707","para_708","para_709","para_710","para_711","para_712"]},{"title":"Act “claim” by the plaintiff), the first prong makes no","paragraphs":["para_714","para_715","para_716","para_717","para_718"]},{"title":"United States, the FTAIA may not even apply. We","paragraphs":["para_720","para_721","para_722","para_723"]},{"title":"Empagran, 542 U.S. at 175 (calling “higher prices in the United States”","paragraphs":["para_725","para_726","para_727","para_728","para_729","para_730","para_731","para_732","para_733","para_734","para_735","para_736","para_737"]},{"title":"417 F.3d 1267, 1269 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (plaintiffs “need only","paragraphs":["para_739","para_740","para_741","para_742","para_743"]},{"title":"Similarly here, Seagate need not show that it was injured","paragraphs":["para_745","para_746","para_747","para_748","para_749","para_750"]},{"title":"Under the second prong, Seagate must show that this","paragraphs":["para_752","para_753"]},{"title":"B. The tainted RFQ prices potentially gave rise to","paragraphs":["para_755"]},{"title":"To meet the second prong of the domestic effects","paragraphs":["para_757","para_758"]},{"title":"Thailand’s and Seagate Singapore’s respective overcharge","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD. 25","paragraphs":["para_761","para_762","para_763","para_764"]},{"title":"Most foreign injury claims fail at this step because it is","paragraphs":["para_766","para_767","para_768"]},{"title":"Seagate’s claim, however, appears to be viable because of","paragraphs":["para_770"]},{"title":"Agreement and the quarterly RFQs—all negotiated in the","paragraphs":["para_772","para_773","para_774"]},{"title":"Seagate has provided evidence that its foreign subsidiaries","paragraphs":["para_776","para_777"]},{"title":"Seagate Technology LLC and entered orders at the (inflated)","paragraphs":["para_779"]},{"title":"At oral argument, NHK admitted that suspension assembly","paragraphs":["para_781","para_782","para_783","para_784","para_785","para_786","para_787"]},{"title":"The district court credited this evidence in its May 15","paragraphs":["para_789","para_790","para_791"]},{"title":"The court in its November 17 order also acknowledged","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Seagate’s theory that “the prices for SAs to be charged to","paragraphs":["para_794"]},{"title":"Seagate entities located outside the United States were set”","paragraphs":["para_796","para_797","para_798","para_799","para_800","para_801","para_802","para_803"]},{"title":"We believe the district court erred in reading In re DRAM","paragraphs":["para_805","para_806","para_807","para_808","para_809","para_810","para_811"]},{"title":"546 F.3d at 984. Relying on a chain of inferences about","paragraphs":["para_813","para_814","para_815","para_816","para_817","para_818","para_819"]},{"title":"Seagate’s theory, in contrast, is rooted in the certainty of","paragraphs":["para_821","para_822","para_823","para_824"]},{"title":"SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD. 27","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"U.S. at 175. 5 Rather, Seagate explains exactly how","paragraphs":["para_827","para_828","para_829","para_830","para_831","para_832","para_833"]},{"title":"We acknowledge, however, that factual questions exist","paragraphs":["para_835","para_836"]},{"title":"Seagate Singapore controlled just as Seagate Thailand was","paragraphs":["para_838","para_839","para_840","para_841","para_842","para_843"]},{"title":"C. Foreign antitrust injury is only eligible for relief when","paragraphs":["para_845"]},{"title":"We conclude with a few remarks on why this case is","paragraphs":["para_847","para_848","para_849"]},{"title":"5 In Empagran, the Court held that the “domestic effect” exception did","paragraphs":["para_851","para_852","para_853"]},{"title":"(emphasis added). The Court used the word “independent” 35 times in","paragraphs":["para_855","para_856","para_857","para_858","para_859","para_860","para_861"]},{"title":"Circuit’s decision in Motorola, 775 F.3d 816, offers valid","paragraphs":["para_863","para_864","para_865"]},{"title":"778 F.3d at 760, it flagged the practical problems of","paragraphs":["para_867","para_868","para_869","para_870","para_871"]},{"title":"775 F.3d at 820. “Companies operate","paragraphs":["para_873","para_874","para_875","para_876","para_877","para_878","para_879","para_880","para_881"]},{"title":"The court thus held that Motorola’s parent entity—Motorola","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Mobility LLC—could not sue on its subsidiaries’ behalf for","paragraphs":["para_884"]},{"title":"(declining “to give Motorola rights to take the place of its","paragraphs":["para_886","para_887"]},{"title":"These appear valid points, but the facts and context of","paragraphs":["para_889"]},{"title":"SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD. 29","paragraphs":["para_891"]},{"title":"Empagran, considerations of judicial policy, and the","paragraphs":["para_893"]},{"title":"First off, the Seventh Circuit in Motorola did not","paragraphs":["para_895","para_896","para_897","para_898"]},{"title":"As a policy matter, the Seventh Circuit advocated a bright-","paragraphs":["para_900"]},{"title":"Act claims based on foreign injuries because the harmed","paragraphs":["para_902","para_903"]},{"title":"(correctly) agree that the FTAIA does not bar foreign","paragraphs":["para_905","para_906"]},{"title":"Supreme Court has noted, “Congress [did not] place the","paragraphs":["para_908","para_909","para_910","para_911","para_912","para_913","para_914","para_915"]},{"title":"Thailand and Seagate Singapore because they adopted those","paragraphs":["para_917"]},{"title":"Second, we are not confronted with a typical foreign","paragraphs":["para_919","para_920","para_921","para_922","para_923","para_924","para_925","para_926","para_927"]},{"title":"States because fixing U.S. commercial activity meant","paragraphs":["para_929"]},{"title":"According to Empagran, the Sherman Act very much was","paragraphs":["para_931","para_932","para_933","para_934","para_935"]},{"title":"166. Simply put, Americans too were harmed by NHK’s","paragraphs":["para_937","para_938","para_939","para_940","para_941","para_942","para_943"]},{"title":"And because the FTAIA imposes very stringent “direct","paragraphs":["para_945","para_946","para_947","para_948"]},{"title":"Report). Tenuous or speculative injuries will not pass this","paragraphs":["para_950","para_951","para_952","para_953"]},{"title":"6 To be fair, Americans will not directly reap the benefits of any damages","paragraphs":["para_955","para_956"]},{"title":"SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD. 31","paragraphs":["para_958","para_959","para_960"]},{"title":"Finally, the international comity concerns raised in","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Motorola are addressed (or perhaps outweighed) by the","paragraphs":["para_963","para_964"]},{"title":"Empagran, we “have long held that application of our","paragraphs":["para_966","para_967","para_968"]},{"title":"542 U.S. at 165. International comity may have to be cast","paragraphs":["para_970","para_971","para_972","para_973","para_974","para_975"]},{"title":"Finally, we affirm the district court’s determination that","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Seagate Thailand was not a mere purchasing agent for","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Seagate Technology LLC because it did not purchase the","paragraphs":["para_979","para_980"]},{"title":"Seagate’s Second Amended Complaint “includes no factual","paragraphs":["para_982","para_983"]},{"title":"While indirect purchases are not the focus of the Second","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Amended Complaint, it repeatedly alleges that Seagate","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Technology LLC bought suspension assemblies; these","paragraphs":["para_987"]},{"title":"Sherman Act claim alleges that NHK “[sold] suspension","paragraphs":["para_989","para_990","para_991","para_992","para_993"]},{"title":"Because an allegation under FED. R. CIV. PROC. 8 does","paragraphs":["para_995","para_996","para_997"]},{"title":"Seagate Thailand and Seagate Singapore gives it standing to","paragraphs":["para_999","para_1000","para_1001"]},{"title":"Johnson, 523 F.3d 1116, 1123 n.1 (9th Cir. 2008)","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(recognizing “standing for an indirect purchaser if . . . the","paragraphs":["para_1004","para_1005"]},{"title":"F.3d 741, 749 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[I]ndirect purchasers may","paragraphs":["para_1007","para_1008","para_1009"]},{"title":"Technology LLC has a viable indirect purchaser claim under","paragraphs":["para_1011"]},{"title":"CONCLUSION","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"We vacate the district court’s May 15, 2023 and","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"November 17, 2023 orders granting partial summary","paragraphs":["para_1015","para_1016","para_1017"]}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"FOR PUBLICATION","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC;","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"(THAILAND) LTD.; SEAGATE","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"HEADQUARTERS PTE, LTD;","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"INTERNATIONAL,","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"Plaintiffs - Appellants,","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"NHK SPRING CO., LTD.; NHK","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"INTERNATIONAL","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"CORPORATION; NHK SPRING","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"(THAILAND) CO., LTD.; NAT","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"PERIPHERAL (DONG GUAN) CO.,","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"LTD.; NAT PERIPHERAL (H.K.)","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"CO., LTD.,","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"Defendants - Appellees.","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"No. 24-4470","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"D.C. No.","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"3:19-md-02918-","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"MMC","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"OPINION","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"Appeal from the United States District Court","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"for the Northern District of California","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"2 SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD.","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"Argued and Submitted June 6, 2025","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"San Francisco, California","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"Filed January 8, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"Before: Consuelo M. Callahan and Kenneth K. Lee, Circuit","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"Judges, and Scott H. Rash, District Judge.*","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"Opinion by Judge Lee","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"SUMMARY**","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"Antitrust","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"The panel vacated the district court’s partial summary","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"judgment in favor of defendants NHK Spring Co., Ltd., et al.","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"and remanded for further proceedings in an antitrust action","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"brought under the Sherman Act by Seagate Technology","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"LLC, an American company, and two Seagate foreign","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"entities.","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"The Seagate plaintiffs sought to bring antitrust claims","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"against Japanese-owned NHK for unlawful price-fixing. In","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"a separate federal criminal proceeding, NHK pleaded guilty","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"to conspiring with its competitors to fix the price of","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"suspension assemblies sold in the United States and","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"elsewhere in the world. Seagate’s foreign entities bought","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"* The Honorable Scott H. Rash, United States District Judge for the","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"District of Arizona, sitting by designation.","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD. 3","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"those price-fixed suspension assemblies, which were","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"incorporated into Seagate’s hard drives, outside the United","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"States. The district court ruled that the Sherman Act did not","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"extend to such foreign injury.","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"The panel held that Seagate alleged a viable theory of","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"extraterritorial reach under the Foreign Trade Antitrust","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"Improvements Act, which provides that U.S. antitrust laws","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"can apply, even if an injury occurs beyond U.S. borders, if","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"the anticompetitive conduct (1) involves goods imported","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"into the United States that Americans buy (the “import","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"commerce” exclusion) or (2) has a direct effect on domestic","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"commerce that in turn causes the foreign antitrust injury to","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"the plaintiff (the “domestic effects” exception). The panel","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"held that the import commerce exclusion did not apply","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"because the suspension assemblies were not directly","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"imported into the U.S. But under the domestic effects","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"exception, Seagate sufficiently alleged that NHK’s price-","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"fixing in the U.S., as reflected in a master product supply","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"agreement negotiated in the U.S., led to the domestic harm","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"of higher prices for the suspension assemblies in the U.S.,","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"and that effect also directly caused an antitrust injury abroad","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"because Seagate’s foreign entities overpaid for the","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"suspension assemblies based on the inflated U.S. price.","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"The panel remanded to the district court to determine","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"whether Seagate adduced sufficient evidence of proximate","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"cause to survive summary judgment.","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"4 SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD.","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"COUNSEL","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"Eamon P. Joyce (argued), Sidley Austin LLP, New York,","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"New York; David R. Carpenter and Nicole M. Baade, Sidley","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"Austin LLP, Los Angeles, California; Jeremy Rozansky,","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, D.C.; Robert N. Hochman","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"and Shirin Mahkamova, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago,","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"Illinois; Steffen N. Johnson and John B. Kenney, Wilson","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Washington, D.C.; Mikaela E.","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"Evans-Aziz, Kenneth R. O'Rourke, and Jeff","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"VanHooreweghe, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, San","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"Francisco, California; Michael W. McConnell, Wilson","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Palo Alto, California; for","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"Plaintiffs-Appellants.","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"Michael F. Murray (argued), Craig Y. Lee, Carter C.","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"Simpson, and Alexandra Glazer, Paul Hastings LLP,","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"Washington, D.C.; Navi S. Dhillon, Paul Hastings LLP, San","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"Francisco, California; for Defendants-Appellees.","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"Aaron D. Van Oort, Kevin P. Wagner, and Kirsten L.","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"Elfstrand, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP,","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"Minneapolis, Minnesota; Paul J. Riehle, Faegre Drinker","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"Biddle & Reath LLP, San Francisco, California; for Amicus","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"Curiae Professor Kenneth G. Elzinga.","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"Kathleen W. Bradish and Randy Stutz, American Antitrust","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"Institute, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae American","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"Antitrust Institute.","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"Jennifer L. Williams and Megan A. Maitia, Summa LLP,","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"Los Angeles, California, for Amicus Curiae Professor","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"Cedric Ryngaert.","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD. 5","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"OPINION","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"LEE, Circuit Judge:","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"American antitrust laws broadly prohibit anticompetitive","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"conduct and authorize private parties to seek treble damages.","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"Congress, however, largely closed our courthouse doors to","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"antitrust claims based on injuries outside the United States.","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"But it carved out two narrow exceptions under the Foreign","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (FTAIA). 15 U.S.C.","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"§ 6a. U.S. antitrust laws can still apply—even if the injury","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"occurs beyond our borders—if the anticompetitive conduct","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"(1) involves goods imported into the United States that","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"Americans buy (the “import commerce” exclusion) or","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"(2) has a direct effect on domestic commerce that in turn","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"causes the foreign antitrust injury to the plaintiff (the","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"“domestic effects” exception).","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"In an increasingly globalized economy, it can sometimes","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"be thorny, as in this case, to tease out when these narrow","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"statutory provisions allow extraterritorial reach of our","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"antitrust laws. Seagate Technology LLC (an American","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"company based in California) and two Seagate foreign","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"entities (Seagate Thailand and Seagate Singapore) argue that","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"they can bring antitrust claims against Japanese-owned NHK","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"Spring Co., Ltd. for unlawful price-fixing. In a separate","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"federal criminal proceeding, NHK pleaded guilty to","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"conspiring with its competitors to fix the price of","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"“suspension assemblies” sold in the United States and","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"elsewhere in the world. But Seagate’s foreign entities","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"bought those price-fixed suspension assemblies—which are","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"incorporated into Seagate’s hard drives—outside the United","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"States. The district court thus granted partial summary","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"6 SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD.","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"judgment for NHK, ruling that the Sherman Act did not","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"extend to such foreign injury.","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"We vacate the district court’s order because Seagate1 has","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"alleged a viable theory of extraterritorial reach under the","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"FTAIA. According to Seagate’s complaint, NHK’s price-","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"fixing scheme was reflected in a master product supply","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"agreement negotiated in the United States with Seagate","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"Technology LLC. That agreement reflected an artificially","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"high price for suspension assemblies. Then this NHK-","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"Seagate Technology LLC agreement in turn allegedly set the","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"pricing parameters for Seagate’s foreign entities because","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"they were obligated to accept those (fixed) prices in the","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"agreement. Put another way, NHK’s price-fixing in the U.S.","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"led to domestic harm (i.e., higher prices for the suspension","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"assemblies in the United States), and that effect also directly","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"caused an antitrust injury abroad (because Seagate’s foreign","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"entities overpaid for the suspension assemblies based on the","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"inflated U.S. price). We, however, remand for the district","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"court to determine whether Seagate has adduced sufficient","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"evidence of proximate cause to survive summary judgment.","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"BACKGROUND","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"I. Factual Background","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"A. Seagate foreign entities buy SAs from NHK and","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"other suppliers.","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"Nearly every consumer electronic device needs a way to","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"store data. Many devices—such as computers, gaming","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"consoles, and servers—rely on hard disk drives (HDDs) for","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"1 We will use the term “Seagate” to refer to Seagate Technology LLC,","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"Seagate Thailand, and Seagate Singapore collectively. But we will refer","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"to each Seagate entity by its individual name if that distinction is relevant","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"to our discussion.","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD. 7","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"bulk storage. Hard disk drives resemble electro-magnetic","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"“filing cabinets” containing several drawers (or “platters”)","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"with millions of folders (or “sectors”) storing electronic data.","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"Seagate Technology LLC, a California-based company,","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"is a leading manufacturer of hard disk drives. But Seagate","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"Technology LLC does not produce all the key components","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"that go into a hard disk drive, including a part called the","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"“suspension assembly” (sometimes called “SA”). Each","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"platter in a hard drive constantly spins to allow the user to","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"access all the data sectors on that platter. A suspension","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"assembly holds a recording head 12 nanometers above a","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"platter turning at 150–170 miles per hour, requiring","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"precision like “a 747 aircraft flying full speed l/l6th of an","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"inch above a [jagged] desert surface.”","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"Reflecting the global nature of commerce today, a","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"Seagate hard disk drive is built with parts bought and","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"assembled across the world by various Seagate foreign","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"entities. Most of Seagate’s suspension assemblies are","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"bought in Thailand by the Thai entity, Seagate Technology","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"(Thailand) Ltd (“Seagate Thailand”). There, the suspension","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"assemblies are incorporated into another part called a head","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"gimbal assembly. Next, Seagate incorporates the head","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"gimbal assembly into yet another part called a head stack","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"assembly either in Thailand or China. The head stack","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"assemblies are then incorporated into finished hard disk","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"drives in Thailand, China, or Singapore, and all the hard disk","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"drives are shipped to Seagate Singapore International","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"Headquarters Pte. Ltd. (“Seagate Singapore”) for","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"distribution. Seagate Singapore either sells the hard disk","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"drives directly or distributes them to other Seagate entities to","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"sell, such as Seagate Technology LLC in California. In other","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"8 SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD.","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"words, only the finished hard disk drives are directly","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"imported into the United States.2","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"Seagate buys its suspension assemblies from a few","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"suppliers. Since the 1980s, the suspension assembly","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"manufacturing industry has consolidated greatly and only","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"two main players remain. One of those is NHK Spring Co.,","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"Ltd., a leading Japanese manufacturer of springs and other","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"engineered components like suspension assemblies. During","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"the relevant period, NHK often received “the majority of the","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"Seagate business” for suspension assembly projects, despite","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"being the highest-priced bidder on Seagate’s proposals.","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"B. NHK rigs suspension assembly prices based on a","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"U.S. agreement.","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"In July 2019, NHK pleaded guilty to criminal price-","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"fixing under the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. From","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"before June 2008 to at least April 2016, NHK engaged in a","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"global conspiracy with another competitor to fix the price of","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"suspension assemblies in the United States and elsewhere.","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"NHK’s officers and employees held meetings with another","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"competitor in which they agreed “to refrain from competing","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"on prices for, fix the prices of, and allocate their respective","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"market shares for[] HDD suspension assemblies.” As part","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"of NHK’s plea agreement, the U.S. Department of Justice","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"sought a criminal fine of $28.5 million dollars, which was","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"approved by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"of Michigan. But the government did not seek restitution “in","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"light of the availability of civil causes of action.” See United","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"States v. NHK Spring Co. Ltd., ECF 25 at 8, No. 2:19-cr-","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"20503 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 31, 2020).","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"2 A few SAs are directly imported for testing and product development","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"purposes; these parts are not at issue in this appeal.","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD. 9","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"NHK’s plea agreement explains that suspension","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"assembly suppliers “exchanged . . . pricing information,","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"including anticipated pricing quotes,” “and used the","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"exchanged pricing information to inform their negotiations","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"with U.S. and foreign customers that purchased” those parts.","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"The “primary purpose” of this conspiracy was to “fix the","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"prices of [hard disk drive] suspension assemblies sold in the","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"United States and elsewhere.” These centralized “pricing","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"quotes” apparently were at the heart of how Seagate sourced","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"suspension assemblies: Importantly for our case, although","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"nearly all of Seagate’s suspension assemblies were","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"purchased by its foreign entities abroad, these foreign","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"entities apparently lacked any authority to decide on any","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"terms of purchase, whether price, quantity, or even the","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"timing of their orders. Such parameters all were determined","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"centrally by Seagate Technology LLC’s Commodities","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"Management Team (“CMT”) in Minnesota. The foreign","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"companies—primarily Seagate Thailand—simply entered","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"orders into their purchase order systems at precisely the","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"times, rates, and prices that CMT instructed them to enter.","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"Pricing was negotiated by Seagate CMT with suppliers","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"quarterly. Although the master Product Supply Agreements","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"between Seagate Technology LLC and each supplier","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"contained some pricing terms (such as price floors, ceilings,","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"or most-favored-nation provisions), these were average or","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"expected prices—not actual transaction prices. Actual","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"transaction prices were finalized by Seagate’s CMT unit","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"each quarter through bidding on an RFQ, or “Request for","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"Quotation.” First, Seagate Technology LLC would send a","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"complex, custom grid to each supplier like NHK. The","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"supplier placed its bids across several dimensions, such as","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"prototypes, mass-production price, model, volume band, and","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"program. These RFQ “responses” from suppliers were then","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"10 SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD.","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"negotiated by Seagate Technology LLC’s CMT on U.S. soil,","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"along with the purchase volumes “allocated” to each","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"supplier. Finally, the agreed-upon prices and volumes were","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"sent by Seagate CMT to Seagate Thailand and Singapore to","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"use to purchase suspension assemblies at the appropriate","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"time.","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"These RFQ responses, called “anticipated pricing","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"quotes” in NHK’s plea agreement, also were the chief","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"instrument that NHK would use to fix prices. First, NHK’s","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"head of American SA sales would discuss specific proposed","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"RFQ responses for a given Seagate product with his","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"competitors. Next, he would relay the contents of these","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"discussions to top NHK executives in Yokohama, one of","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"whom was later indicted for his role in the conspiracy, and","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"another who candidly explained that NHK would use","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"competitor pricing information “as reference” for its own","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"RFQ responses. Finally, to entrench this process, NHK’s","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"head of American SA sales even tried to make a job posting","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"for a position for NHK in Minnesota that included the","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"requirement, “Find out competitor’s information, pricing","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"information”—because he “underst[oo]d that collecting","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"competitor pricing information” simply was part of the job.","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"When NHK executives in Yokohama caught wind of this,","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"one of them advised, “Just scratch pricing information on","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"competitors. That you can verbally tell once we hire.”","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"II. Procedural History","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"Shortly after NHK was sentenced in its criminal case,","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"Seagate sued in the Northern District of California, alleging","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"violations of the Sherman Act, violations of antitrust statutes","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"in Minnesota and California, and common-law breach of","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"contract. Seagate sought treble damages under Section 4 of","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15(a), among other relief.","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD. 11","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"Seagate amended its complaint twice, in October 2020 and","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"in April 2021.","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"While discovery was ongoing, NHK moved for Partial","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"Summary Judgment Regarding Foreign Commerce. NHK","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"alleged that Seagate’s “direct purchaser claims arising from","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"component sales that took place outside the U.S.”—in other","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"words, claims “based on sales of [suspension assemblies]","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"billed and shipped to Seagate Thailand and Singapore”—","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"were barred by the FTAIA. 15 U.S.C. § 6a. The FTAIA","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"bars Sherman Act claims based on conduct involving “trade","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"or commerce with foreign nations,” unless that conduct","paragraph_id":"para_315"},{"text":"(1) involves imported goods that Americans buy or (2) “has","paragraph_id":"para_316"},{"text":"a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect” on","paragraph_id":"para_317"},{"text":"U.S. domestic commerce or certain exports and “such effect","paragraph_id":"para_318"},{"text":"gives rise to” an independent Sherman Act claim. Id. NHK","paragraph_id":"para_319"},{"text":"essentially argued that, for example, if a suspension","paragraph_id":"para_320"},{"text":"assembly was bought by a Thai subsidiary in Thailand, this","paragraph_id":"para_321"},{"text":"qualified as wholly foreign commerce ineligible for","paragraph_id":"para_322"},{"text":"Sherman Act relief.","paragraph_id":"para_323"},{"text":"The district court at first agreed with NHK in part. In its","paragraph_id":"para_324"},{"text":"May 15, 2023 order, the court found that most of the","paragraph_id":"para_325"},{"text":"suspension assemblies purchased by Seagate Thailand and","paragraph_id":"para_326"},{"text":"Seagate Singapore never entered the United States at any","paragraph_id":"para_327"},{"text":"point. These were indeed “wholly foreign transactions,” the","paragraph_id":"para_328"},{"text":"court ruled, ineligible for Sherman Act relief. In re Hard","paragraph_id":"para_329"},{"text":"Disk Drive Suspension Assemblies Antitrust Litig. (“In re","paragraph_id":"para_330"},{"text":"HDD”), No. 19-md-02918, 2023 WL 3483242, at *8 (N.D.","paragraph_id":"para_331"},{"text":"Cal. May 15, 2023). But about one-third of Seagate’s","paragraph_id":"para_332"},{"text":"foreign suspension assembly purchases did eventually enter","paragraph_id":"para_333"},{"text":"the U.S. as part of finished hard drives. True, these parts","paragraph_id":"para_334"},{"text":"first were integrated into the hard drives overseas, and the","paragraph_id":"para_335"},{"text":"FTAIA’s import exclusion only covers conduct involving","paragraph_id":"para_336"},{"text":"“import trade or import commerce.” 15 U.S.C. § 6a. But the","paragraph_id":"para_337"},{"text":"12 SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD.","paragraph_id":"para_338"},{"text":"court held that “the import . . . exclusion can be established","paragraph_id":"para_339"},{"text":"without a showing that the defendants themselves shipped","paragraph_id":"para_340"},{"text":"price-fixed goods into” the U.S. and thus denied summary","paragraph_id":"para_341"},{"text":"judgment in part. Id. at *6 (emphasis added).","paragraph_id":"para_342"},{"text":"The district court changed direction when asked by NHK","paragraph_id":"para_343"},{"text":"to reconsider. First, the court held that the defendant did","paragraph_id":"para_344"},{"text":"have to directly ship the price-fixed goods into the United","paragraph_id":"para_345"},{"text":"States for the import exclusion to apply, and no suspension","paragraph_id":"para_346"},{"text":"assemblies were directly shipped to the U.S. here. In re","paragraph_id":"para_347"},{"text":"HDD, 2023 WL 8007985, at *3 (Nov. 17, 2023 order). Next,","paragraph_id":"para_348"},{"text":"the court held that Seagate also could not establish an","paragraph_id":"para_349"},{"text":"“effect” on domestic trade or commerce “giv[ing] rise to” an","paragraph_id":"para_350"},{"text":"independent Sherman Act claim. Id. at *5. Despite the","paragraph_id":"para_351"},{"text":"collusive “agreements in the United States . . . whereby the","paragraph_id":"para_352"},{"text":"prices for SAs . . . were set,” it was “‘the overall price-fixing","paragraph_id":"para_353"},{"text":"conspiracy [that] proximately caused the effect abroad,’” the","paragraph_id":"para_354"},{"text":"court held, and not those collusive agreements. Id. at *4","paragraph_id":"para_355"},{"text":"(quoting In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM)","paragraph_id":"para_356"},{"text":"Antitrust Litig., 546 F.3d 981, 988 (9th Cir. 2008) (“In re","paragraph_id":"para_357"},{"text":"DRAM”)). The district court thus granted NHK’s partial","paragraph_id":"para_358"},{"text":"summary judgment motion in full.","paragraph_id":"para_359"},{"text":"Finally, the court found Seagate’s Second Amended","paragraph_id":"para_360"},{"text":"Complaint did not include any “factual allegations that any","paragraph_id":"para_361"},{"text":"Seagate Plaintiff indirectly purchased an SA or a product","paragraph_id":"para_362"},{"text":"containing an SA.” Id. at *5. The court denied leave to","paragraph_id":"para_363"},{"text":"amend to add any such “indirect purchaser” claims, id. at *6,","paragraph_id":"para_364"},{"text":"and it certified the May 15, 2023 and November 17, 2023","paragraph_id":"para_365"},{"text":"orders for interlocutory appeal.","paragraph_id":"para_366"},{"text":"Seagate advances several positions on appeal: (1) that","paragraph_id":"para_367"},{"text":"the FTAIA does not apply to any of its claims, (2) that the","paragraph_id":"para_368"},{"text":"domestic effects of NHK’s price-fixing proximately caused","paragraph_id":"para_369"},{"text":"Seagate’s antitrust injuries abroad, and (3) that at least a","paragraph_id":"para_370"},{"text":"SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD. 13","paragraph_id":"para_371"},{"text":"subset of its claims qualify as “import trade or commerce.”","paragraph_id":"para_372"},{"text":"See 15 U.S.C. § 6a. Seagate also argues that Seagate","paragraph_id":"para_373"},{"text":"Technology LLC—rather than Seagate Thailand or Seagate","paragraph_id":"para_374"},{"text":"Singapore—was the “direct purchaser” of all the suspension","paragraph_id":"para_375"},{"text":"assemblies. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.","paragraph_id":"para_376"},{"text":"§ 1292(b), and we hold that Seagate’s theory of domestic","paragraph_id":"para_377"},{"text":"effects might be viable. We thus vacate the district court’s","paragraph_id":"para_378"},{"text":"orders and remand the case.","paragraph_id":"para_379"},{"text":"DISCUSSION","paragraph_id":"para_380"},{"text":"“We review the district court’s grant of summary","paragraph_id":"para_381"},{"text":"judgment de novo.” Desire, LLC v. Manna Textiles, Inc.,","paragraph_id":"para_382"},{"text":"986 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). We","paragraph_id":"para_383"},{"text":"ask, “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the","paragraph_id":"para_384"},{"text":"nonmoving party, whether there are any genuine issues of","paragraph_id":"para_385"},{"text":"material fact and whether the district court correctly applied","paragraph_id":"para_386"},{"text":"the relevant substantive law.” Delta Sav. Bank v. United","paragraph_id":"para_387"},{"text":"States, 265 F.3d 1017, 1021 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation","paragraph_id":"para_388"},{"text":"omitted). We may address “any issue fairly included” within","paragraph_id":"para_389"},{"text":"an order certified for appeal, “because it is the order that is","paragraph_id":"para_390"},{"text":"appealable, and not the controlling question identified by the","paragraph_id":"para_391"},{"text":"district court.” Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1063","paragraph_id":"para_392"},{"text":"(9th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).","paragraph_id":"para_393"},{"text":"I. The FTAIA places geographic limits on the reach of","paragraph_id":"para_394"},{"text":"U.S. antitrust law.","paragraph_id":"para_395"},{"text":"Congress enacted the FTAIA in 1982 in part to clarify","paragraph_id":"para_396"},{"text":"United States antitrust jurisdiction over international","paragraph_id":"para_397"},{"text":"transactions—a question that had vexed our courts. See","paragraph_id":"para_398"},{"text":"Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764, 796 n.23","paragraph_id":"para_399"},{"text":"(1993); United States v. LSL Biotechnologies, 379 F.3d 672,","paragraph_id":"para_400"},{"text":"14 SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD.","paragraph_id":"para_401"},{"text":"677–78 (9th Cir. 2004). The statute provides that the","paragraph_id":"para_402"},{"text":"Sherman Act:","paragraph_id":"para_403"},{"text":"shall not apply to conduct involving trade or","paragraph_id":"para_404"},{"text":"commerce (other than import trade or import","paragraph_id":"para_405"},{"text":"commerce) with foreign nations unless—","paragraph_id":"para_406"},{"text":"(1) such conduct has a direct, substantial,","paragraph_id":"para_407"},{"text":"and reasonably foreseeable effect—","paragraph_id":"para_408"},{"text":"(A) on trade or commerce which is","paragraph_id":"para_409"},{"text":"not trade or commerce with foreign","paragraph_id":"para_410"},{"text":"nations, or on import trade or import","paragraph_id":"para_411"},{"text":"commerce with foreign nations; or","paragraph_id":"para_412"},{"text":"(B) on export trade or export","paragraph_id":"para_413"},{"text":"commerce with foreign nations, of a","paragraph_id":"para_414"},{"text":"person engaged in such trade or","paragraph_id":"para_415"},{"text":"commerce in the United States; and","paragraph_id":"para_416"},{"text":"(2) such effect gives rise to a claim under","paragraph_id":"para_417"},{"text":"the [Sherman Act].","paragraph_id":"para_418"},{"text":"15 U.S.C. § 6a. In other words, the statute generally bars the","paragraph_id":"para_419"},{"text":"Sherman Act from reaching foreign commercial activity, but","paragraph_id":"para_420"},{"text":"then adds a caveat allowing jurisdiction for foreign","paragraph_id":"para_421"},{"text":"commerce if the anticompetitive conduct (1) involves","paragraph_id":"para_422"},{"text":"“import trade or . . . commerce” (i.e., goods imported into","paragraph_id":"para_423"},{"text":"the United States and bought by Americans) or","paragraph_id":"para_424"},{"text":"(2) sufficiently affects American domestic or (certain)","paragraph_id":"para_425"},{"text":"export commerce that in turn proximately causes an antitrust","paragraph_id":"para_426"},{"text":"injury. In re DRAM, 546 F.3d at 985. These limits ensure","paragraph_id":"para_427"},{"text":"that the Sherman Act protects “American consumers and","paragraph_id":"para_428"},{"text":"American exporters, not foreign consumers or producers,”","paragraph_id":"para_429"},{"text":"and does not overly burden U.S. companies’ conduct","paragraph_id":"para_430"},{"text":"overseas. Id. at 986 (citation omitted).","paragraph_id":"para_431"},{"text":"SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD. 15","paragraph_id":"para_432"},{"text":"The phrasing of the FTAIA has been called confusing at","paragraph_id":"para_433"},{"text":"times, but the general thrust of the statute is clear. It","paragraph_id":"para_434"},{"text":"underscores that American courts generally are not open to","paragraph_id":"para_435"},{"text":"antitrust injuries occurring overseas, no matter how those","paragraph_id":"para_436"},{"text":"injuries arise: “American exporters” and “firms doing","paragraph_id":"para_437"},{"text":"business abroad” may “enter[] into business arrangements,”","paragraph_id":"para_438"},{"text":"no matter how “anticompetitive, as long as those","paragraph_id":"para_439"},{"text":"arrangements adversely affect only foreign markets.” F.","paragraph_id":"para_440"},{"text":"Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A., 542 U.S. 155,","paragraph_id":"para_441"},{"text":"161 (2004) (citing House Report). If a foreign country does","paragraph_id":"para_442"},{"text":"not forbid certain anticompetitive conduct, then American","paragraph_id":"para_443"},{"text":"companies doing business there can engage in such conduct,","paragraph_id":"para_444"},{"text":"even if it would be unlawful here. Otherwise, we would be","paragraph_id":"para_445"},{"text":"disadvantaging American companies competing in foreign","paragraph_id":"para_446"},{"text":"markets.","paragraph_id":"para_447"},{"text":"Congress thus did not expand the purview of our antitrust","paragraph_id":"para_448"},{"text":"laws to reach “foreign conduct that causes independent","paragraph_id":"para_449"},{"text":"foreign harm,” except “where that conduct also causes","paragraph_id":"para_450"},{"text":"domestic harm.” Id. at 166. As this court has noted, a","paragraph_id":"para_451"},{"text":"“transaction between two foreign firms, even if American-","paragraph_id":"para_452"},{"text":"owned, should not, merely by virtue of the American","paragraph_id":"para_453"},{"text":"ownership, come within the reach of our antitrust laws,”","paragraph_id":"para_454"},{"text":"unless specifically provided for by the FTAIA. United","paragraph_id":"para_455"},{"text":"States v. Hui Hsiung, 778 F.3d 738, 754 (9th Cir. 2015)","paragraph_id":"para_456"},{"text":"(quoting House Report).","paragraph_id":"para_457"},{"text":"Indeed, there is good reason to be circumspect when it","paragraph_id":"para_458"},{"text":"comes to the Sherman Act’s territorial scope. Beyond","paragraph_id":"para_459"},{"text":"merely supporting American firms’ competitiveness abroad,","paragraph_id":"para_460"},{"text":"the Supreme Court has highlighted international comity and","paragraph_id":"para_461"},{"text":"refraining from interfering in other countries’ regulation of","paragraph_id":"para_462"},{"text":"their own economies, at least where no Americans are","paragraph_id":"para_463"},{"text":"harmed. See, e.g., Empagran, 542 U.S. at 164–68. Even","paragraph_id":"para_464"},{"text":"where it is an American-owned company that suffers","paragraph_id":"para_465"},{"text":"16 SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD.","paragraph_id":"para_466"},{"text":"antitrust injury abroad, so long as that company chose to","paragraph_id":"para_467"},{"text":"incorporate overseas, it must take the good with the bad","paragraph_id":"para_468"},{"text":"when it comes to that country’s legal regime. As the Seventh","paragraph_id":"para_469"},{"text":"Circuit noted, a company cannot “pick and choose from the","paragraph_id":"para_470"},{"text":"benefits . . . of [U.S.] corporate citizenship” by availing itself","paragraph_id":"para_471"},{"text":"of the Sherman and Clayton Acts while avoiding compliance","paragraph_id":"para_472"},{"text":"with United States tax, labor, and environmental","paragraph_id":"para_473"},{"text":"requirements by choosing to do business through foreign","paragraph_id":"para_474"},{"text":"entities. Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., 775","paragraph_id":"para_475"},{"text":"F.3d 816, 822, 827 (7th Cir. 2015); see also Empagran, 542","paragraph_id":"para_476"},{"text":"U.S. at 166.","paragraph_id":"para_477"},{"text":"In short, American antitrust protections apply only when","paragraph_id":"para_478"},{"text":"there is a direct and proximate link to U.S. harm. Congress","paragraph_id":"para_479"},{"text":"provided a few ways to establish that link even where the","paragraph_id":"para_480"},{"text":"ultimate antitrust injury occurs overseas.","paragraph_id":"para_481"},{"text":"First, “import trade” and “import commerce” are","paragraph_id":"para_482"},{"text":"excluded from the FTAIA’s ban on extraterritorial reach","paragraph_id":"para_483"},{"text":"(i.e., the Sherman Act applies). See 15 U.S.C. § 6a; Hui","paragraph_id":"para_484"},{"text":"Hsiung, 778 F.3d at 754. For example, if Japanese","paragraph_id":"para_485"},{"text":"carmakers fix prices of their cars in Japan but import them","paragraph_id":"para_486"},{"text":"into the United States, then American antitrust laws would","paragraph_id":"para_487"},{"text":"cover such conduct under the FTAIA’s “import commerce”","paragraph_id":"para_488"},{"text":"exclusion.","paragraph_id":"para_489"},{"text":"Second, the Sherman Act also applies to anticompetitive","paragraph_id":"para_490"},{"text":"conduct (a) that has a harmful effect on domestic or (certain)","paragraph_id":"para_491"},{"text":"export trade or commerce, and (b) such effect “gives rise to”","paragraph_id":"para_492"},{"text":"an independent Sherman Act claim. 15 U.S.C. § 6a(1)–(2);","paragraph_id":"para_493"},{"text":"see Empagran, 542 U.S. at 174. This is sometimes called","paragraph_id":"para_494"},{"text":"the FTAIA’s “domestic effects” exception.","paragraph_id":"para_495"},{"text":"SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD. 17","paragraph_id":"para_496"},{"text":"We next turn to whether Seagate meets either the “import","paragraph_id":"para_497"},{"text":"commerce” exclusion or the “domestic effects” exception","paragraph_id":"para_498"},{"text":"under the FTAIA.3","paragraph_id":"para_499"},{"text":"II. The FTAIA’s “import commerce” exclusion does","paragraph_id":"para_500"},{"text":"not apply because the SAs were not directly","paragraph_id":"para_501"},{"text":"imported into the United States.","paragraph_id":"para_502"},{"text":"Seagate Thailand and Seagate Singapore bought price-","paragraph_id":"para_503"},{"text":"fixed suspension assemblies outside the United States. One","paragraph_id":"para_504"},{"text":"way these foreign entities could bring a Sherman Act claim","paragraph_id":"para_505"},{"text":"for their purchases is if the suspension assemblies were","paragraph_id":"para_506"},{"text":"directly imported into this country. NHK’s price-fixing","paragraph_id":"para_507"},{"text":"conduct would then be “conduct involving . . . import trade","paragraph_id":"para_508"},{"text":"or . . . commerce,” and would be exempt from the FTAIA’s","paragraph_id":"para_509"},{"text":"ban on extraterritorial application of U.S. antitrust law. 15","paragraph_id":"para_510"},{"text":"U.S.C. § 6a.","paragraph_id":"para_511"},{"text":"But NHK’s price-fixing conduct did not involve “import","paragraph_id":"para_512"},{"text":"trade or . . . commerce” because the suspension assemblies","paragraph_id":"para_513"},{"text":"by themselves were not imported into the United States.","paragraph_id":"para_514"},{"text":"Only the finished hard disk drives were imported into the","paragraph_id":"para_515"},{"text":"United States. Any trade or commerce involving suspension","paragraph_id":"para_516"},{"text":"assemblies was thus not “import trade or . . . commerce,” but","paragraph_id":"para_517"},{"text":"merely “trade or commerce . . . with foreign nations.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_518"},{"text":"A few factual clarifications may be helpful. First,","paragraph_id":"para_519"},{"text":"Seagate does not dispute that none of the suspension","paragraph_id":"para_520"},{"text":"assemblies at issue were directly sent to the United States","paragraph_id":"para_521"},{"text":"3 Seagate argues that the FTAIA is not relevant here because this case","paragraph_id":"para_522"},{"text":"involves price-fixing conduct that took place in the United States, while","paragraph_id":"para_523"},{"text":"the FTAIA only covers “wholly foreign” commerce. Not so. The","paragraph_id":"para_524"},{"text":"Supreme Court held that the FTAIA applied in Empagran even though","paragraph_id":"para_525"},{"text":"“some of the anticompetitive price-fixing conduct alleged . . . took place","paragraph_id":"para_526"},{"text":"in America,” 542 U.S. at 163, 165, and we did the same in Hui Hsiung,","paragraph_id":"para_527"},{"text":"778 F.3d at 743, 753.","paragraph_id":"para_528"},{"text":"18 SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD.","paragraph_id":"para_529"},{"text":"after Seagate bought them. They were first incorporated into","paragraph_id":"para_530"},{"text":"hard disk drive components and hard disk drives, which were","paragraph_id":"para_531"},{"text":"later imported to the U.S. Second, Seagate also concedes","paragraph_id":"para_532"},{"text":"that it does not sell suspension assemblies—indeed, there is","paragraph_id":"para_533"},{"text":"no consumer market for them, only for finished hard disk","paragraph_id":"para_534"},{"text":"drives.","paragraph_id":"para_535"},{"text":"Seagate mainly relies on two related arguments to argue","paragraph_id":"para_536"},{"text":"that the “import exclusion” applies: (1) that a qualifying","paragraph_id":"para_537"},{"text":"import need not be a direct import but may come through","paragraph_id":"para_538"},{"text":"intermediate steps in “the supply chain,” and (2) that the","paragraph_id":"para_539"},{"text":"FTAIA exempts not only import trade and commerce but","paragraph_id":"para_540"},{"text":"also “conduct involving . . . import commerce,” which,","paragraph_id":"para_541"},{"text":"again, includes the broader “supply chain.” Seagate thus","paragraph_id":"para_542"},{"text":"argues that the one-third of suspension assemblies that later","paragraph_id":"para_543"},{"text":"entered the U.S. as part of finished hard disk drives qualify","paragraph_id":"para_544"},{"text":"as imports under the FTAIA, and that NHK’s price-fixing","paragraph_id":"para_545"},{"text":"activity constitutes conduct involving import trade.","paragraph_id":"para_546"},{"text":"These arguments are unconvincing. For starters, we","paragraph_id":"para_547"},{"text":"usually interpret words as “understood in their ordinary,","paragraph_id":"para_548"},{"text":"everyday meanings.” Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner,","paragraph_id":"para_549"},{"text":"READING LAW: THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL TEXTS 69","paragraph_id":"para_550"},{"text":"(2012). And we have never defined “import trade or","paragraph_id":"para_551"},{"text":"commerce” so broadly as to encompass parts incorporated","paragraph_id":"para_552"},{"text":"into the imported goods. Rather, we usually refer to the final","paragraph_id":"para_553"},{"text":"end-product, not specific parts within it, when we talk about","paragraph_id":"para_554"},{"text":"an imported good. Take smartphones made by the South","paragraph_id":"para_555"},{"text":"Korean company Samsung. Many of its phones use batteries","paragraph_id":"para_556"},{"text":"or other parts made in third countries such as China or","paragraph_id":"para_557"},{"text":"Vietnam. We would normally describe Samsung phones as","paragraph_id":"para_558"},{"text":"imported goods from South Korea, despite some internal","paragraph_id":"para_559"},{"text":"parts being made elsewhere.","paragraph_id":"para_560"},{"text":"SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD. 19","paragraph_id":"para_561"},{"text":"In Hui Hsiung, we strongly suggested that the “import","paragraph_id":"para_562"},{"text":"trade or commerce” exception in the FTAIA applies only to","paragraph_id":"para_563"},{"text":"the final imported end-product. That case dealt with TFT–","paragraph_id":"para_564"},{"text":"LCD liquid crystal display panels found in many computer","paragraph_id":"para_565"},{"text":"screens. While the case involved both panels that were","paragraph_id":"para_566"},{"text":"directly sold into the United States and panels first","paragraph_id":"para_567"},{"text":"incorporated into computers abroad and then sold here, 778","paragraph_id":"para_568"},{"text":"F.3d at 753, we considered only panels that came directly to","paragraph_id":"para_569"},{"text":"the U.S. (as panels) in analyzing “import trade,” see id. at","paragraph_id":"para_570"},{"text":"755. We repeatedly emphasized that the defendant","paragraph_id":"para_571"},{"text":"manufacturers sold panels “to customers in the United","paragraph_id":"para_572"},{"text":"States.” Id. And most of all, we explained that even though","paragraph_id":"para_573"},{"text":"the defendants “did not manufacture any consumer products","paragraph_id":"para_574"},{"text":"for importation into the United States,” they “negotiated","paragraph_id":"para_575"},{"text":"with United States companies in the United States to sell","paragraph_id":"para_576"},{"text":"TFT–LCD panels at [fixed] prices . . . . [and] [i]mportation","paragraph_id":"para_577"},{"text":"of this critical component of various electronic devices is","paragraph_id":"para_578"},{"text":"surely ‘import trade or import commerce.’” Id. at 756","paragraph_id":"para_579"},{"text":"(emphasis added). In other words, the display panels by","paragraph_id":"para_580"},{"text":"themselves were imported as components in Hui Hsiung.","paragraph_id":"para_581"},{"text":"We thus held that “transactions . . . directly between the U.S.","paragraph_id":"para_582"},{"text":"plaintiff purchasers and the defendant cartel members are","paragraph_id":"para_583"},{"text":". . . import commerce,” and “goods manufactured abroad","paragraph_id":"para_584"},{"text":"and sold in the United States [are] import commerce.” Id. at","paragraph_id":"para_585"},{"text":"755 (citations omitted). In contrast here, the suspension","paragraph_id":"para_586"},{"text":"assemblies were neither purchased by buyers in the United","paragraph_id":"para_587"},{"text":"States nor “sold” in (or into) the United States. In short,","paragraph_id":"para_588"},{"text":"mere parts in the international supply chain lack sufficient","paragraph_id":"para_589"},{"text":"U.S. nexus to justify the extraterritorial reach of American","paragraph_id":"para_590"},{"text":"antitrust laws.","paragraph_id":"para_591"},{"text":"True, Hui Hsiung dealt with the sufficiency of an","paragraph_id":"para_592"},{"text":"indictment and of evidence to support a jury verdict and thus","paragraph_id":"para_593"},{"text":"did not define the outer limits of import trade. See id. at 755–","paragraph_id":"para_594"},{"text":"20 SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD.","paragraph_id":"para_595"},{"text":"56 & n.8. But nothing in the case suggests that it would","paragraph_id":"para_596"},{"text":"include activities “up and down the supply chain,” as","paragraph_id":"para_597"},{"text":"Seagate suggests. It is also true that suspension assemblies","paragraph_id":"para_598"},{"text":"“have no use other than as a hard-drive component,” as","paragraph_id":"para_599"},{"text":"Seagate notes. But Seagate fails to explain why this should","paragraph_id":"para_600"},{"text":"work in its favor. No circuit authority suggests that every","paragraph_id":"para_601"},{"text":"foreign component cartel must have redressability under the","paragraph_id":"para_602"},{"text":"FTAIA’s import exclusion, seeing as relief may still be","paragraph_id":"para_603"},{"text":"available under the statute’s effects exceptions. See, e.g.,","paragraph_id":"para_604"},{"text":"Hui Hsiung, 778 F.3d at 760.","paragraph_id":"para_605"},{"text":"In sum, Seagate was harmed not in the import trade but","paragraph_id":"para_606"},{"text":"several steps up in its manufacturing supply chain—and a","paragraph_id":"para_607"},{"text":"“transaction between two foreign firms” typically must seek","paragraph_id":"para_608"},{"text":"relief not through the FTAIA’s import commerce exclusion","paragraph_id":"para_609"},{"text":"but through the domestic effects exception. Id. at 754. We","paragraph_id":"para_610"},{"text":"turn to that next.","paragraph_id":"para_611"},{"text":"III. The FTAIA’s “domestic effects” exception might","paragraph_id":"para_612"},{"text":"apply and allow Seagate to pursue its antitrust","paragraph_id":"para_613"},{"text":"claims against NHK.","paragraph_id":"para_614"},{"text":"The FTAIA has another exception—“domestic","paragraph_id":"para_615"},{"text":"effects”—that allows extraterritorial application of","paragraph_id":"para_616"},{"text":"American antitrust law. Foreign non-import commerce can","paragraph_id":"para_617"},{"text":"fall within the Sherman Act if the anti-competitive conduct","paragraph_id":"para_618"},{"text":"(1) has a “direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable","paragraph_id":"para_619"},{"text":"effect” on certain U.S.-based commerce, and (2) that effect","paragraph_id":"para_620"},{"text":"“gives rise to” an antitrust claim. See 15 U.S.C. § 6a. As","paragraph_id":"para_621"},{"text":"the Supreme Court stated in Empagran, “there should be no","paragraph_id":"para_622"},{"text":"American antitrust jurisdiction absent a direct, substantial","paragraph_id":"para_623"},{"text":"and reasonably foreseeable effect on domestic commerce or","paragraph_id":"para_624"},{"text":"a domestic competitor.” 542 U.S. at 163 (quoting House","paragraph_id":"para_625"},{"text":"Report); accord Hui Hsiung, 778 F.3d at 754.","paragraph_id":"para_626"},{"text":"SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD. 21","paragraph_id":"para_627"},{"text":"The two requirements above are strict by design. A","paragraph_id":"para_628"},{"text":"“direct” effect on U.S.-based commerce means the effect","paragraph_id":"para_629"},{"text":"must “follow[] as an immediate consequence of the","paragraph_id":"para_630"},{"text":"defendant’s activity.” LSL, 379 F.3d at 680; see Hui Hsiung,","paragraph_id":"para_631"},{"text":"778 F.3d at 758 & n.9. An “effect cannot be ‘direct’ where","paragraph_id":"para_632"},{"text":"it depends on . . . uncertain intervening developments.” LSL,","paragraph_id":"para_633"},{"text":"379 F.3d at 681. And to “give[] rise to” a Sherman Act claim","paragraph_id":"para_634"},{"text":"means the effect (on U.S. commerce) must proximately","paragraph_id":"para_635"},{"text":"cause the antitrust injury. In re DRAM, 546 F.3d at 988.","paragraph_id":"para_636"},{"text":"“‘[B]ut for’ causation cannot suffice for the FTAIA,” such","paragraph_id":"para_637"},{"text":"as where intervening forces may have caused the ultimate","paragraph_id":"para_638"},{"text":"antitrust injury. Id. at 987; see Hui Hsiung, 778 F.3d at 758.","paragraph_id":"para_639"},{"text":"Together, these requirements ensure there is a sufficient","paragraph_id":"para_640"},{"text":"nexus to the United States such that we open our courts","paragraph_id":"para_641"},{"text":"despite the foreign elements. They require a tight causal link","paragraph_id":"para_642"},{"text":"between the defendant’s anticompetitive conduct, the effect","paragraph_id":"para_643"},{"text":"on U.S. commerce, and the ultimate antitrust injury. There","paragraph_id":"para_644"},{"text":"must be a direct impact in the United States tethered to a","paragraph_id":"para_645"},{"text":"Sherman Act violation. Put differently, U.S. courts are only","paragraph_id":"para_646"},{"text":"open to foreign antitrust injuries that arise through harm to","paragraph_id":"para_647"},{"text":"U.S. commerce. See Empagran, 542 U.S. at 174.","paragraph_id":"para_648"},{"text":"A. NHK’s price-fixing had a harmful effect on U.S.","paragraph_id":"para_649"},{"text":"domestic commerce.","paragraph_id":"para_650"},{"text":"We address the first prong of the domestic effects","paragraph_id":"para_651"},{"text":"exception: Seagate must show that NHK’s conduct caused","paragraph_id":"para_652"},{"text":"an immediate harm to U.S. domestic commerce. See id.","paragraph_id":"para_653"},{"text":"(requiring an adverse effect). Seagate asserts that “NHK","paragraph_id":"para_654"},{"text":"colluded to rig bids in the United States, and the domestic","paragraph_id":"para_655"},{"text":"effects of that conduct [were] distorted bidding, suppressed","paragraph_id":"para_656"},{"text":"competition, and binding agreements incorporating price-","paragraph_id":"para_657"},{"text":"fixed terms.”","paragraph_id":"para_658"},{"text":"22 SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD.","paragraph_id":"para_659"},{"text":"These facts are largely undisputed. NHK admits in its","paragraph_id":"para_660"},{"text":"plea deal with the United States government that it agreed","paragraph_id":"para_661"},{"text":"with another competitor “to refrain from competing on","paragraph_id":"para_662"},{"text":"prices for, fix the prices of, and allocate their respective","paragraph_id":"para_663"},{"text":"market shares for, HDD suspension assemblies to be sold in","paragraph_id":"para_664"},{"text":"the United States and elsewhere.” It further admits it","paragraph_id":"para_665"},{"text":"“exchanged [suspension assembly] pricing information,","paragraph_id":"para_666"},{"text":"including anticipated pricing quotes,” with its competitor","paragraph_id":"para_667"},{"text":"and “used the exchanged information to inform their","paragraph_id":"para_668"},{"text":"negotiations with U.S. and foreign customers that purchased","paragraph_id":"para_669"},{"text":"HDD suspension assemblies.” The parties in their briefing","paragraph_id":"para_670"},{"text":"have not identified how many of NHK’s price-fixed SAs","paragraph_id":"para_671"},{"text":"were sold within the United States or to American","paragraph_id":"para_672"},{"text":"companies but NHK sold them to a wide range of","paragraph_id":"para_673"},{"text":"companies, including Seagate, Toshiba, Western Digital,","paragraph_id":"para_674"},{"text":"Quantum, IBM, Fujitsu, Samsung, and Hitachi, during the","paragraph_id":"para_675"},{"text":"relevant period. While we do not know the dollar value of","paragraph_id":"para_676"},{"text":"the price-fixed SAs sold in the United States, NHK in its plea","paragraph_id":"para_677"},{"text":"deal conceded that “[d]uring the relevant period, the","paragraph_id":"para_678"},{"text":"conspiracy . . . had a direct, substantial, and reasonably","paragraph_id":"para_679"},{"text":"foreseeable effect on interstate and import trade []","paragraph_id":"para_680"},{"text":"commerce.” So NHK’s plea agreement alone appears to","paragraph_id":"para_681"},{"text":"confirm the first prong of the domestic effects exception:","paragraph_id":"para_682"},{"text":"NHK admits to fixing prices of suspension assemblies sold","paragraph_id":"para_683"},{"text":"in the United States (as well as around the world), and","paragraph_id":"para_684"},{"text":"NHK’s actions apparently had a direct, substantial, and","paragraph_id":"para_685"},{"text":"reasonably foreseeable effect on U.S. commerce. See 15","paragraph_id":"para_686"},{"text":"U.S.C. § 6a(1).4","paragraph_id":"para_687"},{"text":"4 NHK’s argument that a corrupt U.S. bidding process can only","paragraph_id":"para_688"},{"text":"constitute “conduct” under the FTAIA—and not an “effect” of conduct—","paragraph_id":"para_689"},{"text":"betrays its plea deal that “the conspiracy involved and had a direct,","paragraph_id":"para_690"},{"text":"substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on” interstate commerce.","paragraph_id":"para_691"},{"text":"While the actual “stuff” of NHK’s conspiracy (illicit meetings, illegal","paragraph_id":"para_692"},{"text":"SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD. 23","paragraph_id":"para_693"},{"text":"To be sure, the domestic effect from NHK’s","paragraph_id":"para_694"},{"text":"anticompetitive conduct did not directly injure Seagate","paragraph_id":"para_695"},{"text":"Technology LLC because it did not buy the suspension","paragraph_id":"para_696"},{"text":"assemblies here—its foreign entities did abroad. But the first","paragraph_id":"para_697"},{"text":"prong of the domestic effects exception still has been met","paragraph_id":"para_698"},{"text":"because NHK admitted in its plea deal that it “fix[ed] the","paragraph_id":"para_699"},{"text":"prices” of “suspension assemblies to be sold in the United","paragraph_id":"para_700"},{"text":"States and elsewhere.” (emphasis added). In other words,","paragraph_id":"para_701"},{"text":"NHK’s price-fixing apparently had a significant and direct","paragraph_id":"para_702"},{"text":"impact on domestic commerce because companies (other","paragraph_id":"para_703"},{"text":"than Seagate Technology LLC) overpaid for the suspension","paragraph_id":"para_704"},{"text":"assemblies bought here in the states.","paragraph_id":"para_705"},{"text":"The FTAIA’s statutory language does not require more","paragraph_id":"para_706"},{"text":"than that to satisfy the first prong: The anticompetitive","paragraph_id":"para_707"},{"text":"conduct must have “a direct, substantial, and reasonably","paragraph_id":"para_708"},{"text":"effect on trade or commerce which is not trade or commerce","paragraph_id":"para_709"},{"text":"with foreign nations [i.e., domestic commerce] or on import","paragraph_id":"para_710"},{"text":"trade or import commerce with foreign nations.” 15 U.S.C.","paragraph_id":"para_711"},{"text":"§ 6a. Unlike the second prong (which refers to a Sherman","paragraph_id":"para_712"},{"text":"Act “claim” by the plaintiff), the first prong makes no","paragraph_id":"para_713"},{"text":"mention of “claim” or “injury” by the plaintiff—it just","paragraph_id":"para_714"},{"text":"requires a direct and substantial “effect” on the American","paragraph_id":"para_715"},{"text":"economy. Stated differently, the first prong does not require","paragraph_id":"para_716"},{"text":"the plaintiff to have suffered an injury in the United States in","paragraph_id":"para_717"},{"text":"addition to outside of it; indeed, if it did suffer harm in the","paragraph_id":"para_718"},{"text":"United States, the FTAIA may not even apply. We","paragraph_id":"para_719"},{"text":"recognized this point in In re DRAM: The plaintiff there was","paragraph_id":"para_720"},{"text":"a “foreign consumer that made its purchases entirely outside","paragraph_id":"para_721"},{"text":"bids, and so on) count as conduct, “higher U.S. prices” can be a","paragraph_id":"para_722"},{"text":"“domestic effect.” In re DRAM, 546 F.3d at 984, 988; see also","paragraph_id":"para_723"},{"text":"Empagran, 542 U.S. at 175 (calling “higher prices in the United States”","paragraph_id":"para_724"},{"text":"an “adverse domestic effect”); 15 U.S.C. § 1 (prohibiting conduct with","paragraph_id":"para_725"},{"text":"the effect of restraining trade).","paragraph_id":"para_726"},{"text":"24 SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD.","paragraph_id":"para_727"},{"text":"of the United States,” but we assumed that the first prong of","paragraph_id":"para_728"},{"text":"the domestic effects exception had been met because the","paragraph_id":"para_729"},{"text":"conspiracy had “raise[ed] the price of DRAM to customers","paragraph_id":"para_730"},{"text":"in both the United States and foreign countries.” 546 F.3d","paragraph_id":"para_731"},{"text":"at 989, 984. The plaintiff’s claim in In re DRAM, however,","paragraph_id":"para_732"},{"text":"failed because it could not meet the second prong that the","paragraph_id":"para_733"},{"text":"domestic effect of higher U.S. prices proximately caused its","paragraph_id":"para_734"},{"text":"foreign injury. Id. The D.C. Circuit appears to share our","paragraph_id":"para_735"},{"text":"view of the first prong requirement of the domestic effects","paragraph_id":"para_736"},{"text":"exception. See Empagran S.A. v. F. Hoffman-LaRoche Ltd.,","paragraph_id":"para_737"},{"text":"417 F.3d 1267, 1269 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (plaintiffs “need only","paragraph_id":"para_738"},{"text":"demonstrate therefore that the U.S. effects of the","paragraph_id":"para_739"},{"text":"[defendants’] allegedly anti-competitive conduct ‘[g]ave rise","paragraph_id":"para_740"},{"text":"to’ their claims” because the statutory text looks at the “situs","paragraph_id":"para_741"},{"text":"of the effects of the allegedly anti-competitive conduct,” not","paragraph_id":"para_742"},{"text":"the “situs of the . . . resulting injuries”) (emphasis added).","paragraph_id":"para_743"},{"text":"Similarly here, Seagate need not show that it was injured","paragraph_id":"para_744"},{"text":"directly from the domestic effect of NHK’s anticompetitive","paragraph_id":"para_745"},{"text":"conduct here in America under the first prong of the","paragraph_id":"para_746"},{"text":"domestic effects exception. It is enough to show that NHK’s","paragraph_id":"para_747"},{"text":"actions had a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable","paragraph_id":"para_748"},{"text":"effect on domestic commerce by fixing prices of suspension","paragraph_id":"para_749"},{"text":"assemblies sold here. But that is not the end of the matter.","paragraph_id":"para_750"},{"text":"Under the second prong, Seagate must show that this","paragraph_id":"para_751"},{"text":"domestic effect gave “rise to a claim under the [Sherman","paragraph_id":"para_752"},{"text":"Act].” Id. We address that next.","paragraph_id":"para_753"},{"text":"B. The tainted RFQ prices potentially gave rise to","paragraph_id":"para_754"},{"text":"Seagate’s antitrust claims.","paragraph_id":"para_755"},{"text":"To meet the second prong of the domestic effects","paragraph_id":"para_756"},{"text":"exception, Seagate must show that the harm of NHK’s","paragraph_id":"para_757"},{"text":"conduct on U.S. domestic commerce directly caused Seagate","paragraph_id":"para_758"},{"text":"Thailand’s and Seagate Singapore’s respective overcharge","paragraph_id":"para_759"},{"text":"SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD. 25","paragraph_id":"para_760"},{"text":"claims. See 15 U.S.C. § 6a(2). In other words, we ask","paragraph_id":"para_761"},{"text":"whether “[o]ther actors or forces may have affected the","paragraph_id":"para_762"},{"text":"foreign prices”—if so, then the plaintiff has not met the","paragraph_id":"para_763"},{"text":"second prong. In re DRAM, 546 F.3d at 988.","paragraph_id":"para_764"},{"text":"Most foreign injury claims fail at this step because it is","paragraph_id":"para_765"},{"text":"often difficult to show that the harmful effect on U.S.","paragraph_id":"para_766"},{"text":"domestic commerce proximately caused the foreign antitrust","paragraph_id":"para_767"},{"text":"injury. Too often the link is too speculative or attenuated.","paragraph_id":"para_768"},{"text":"Seagate’s claim, however, appears to be viable because of","paragraph_id":"para_769"},{"text":"the unique nature of how the master Product Supply","paragraph_id":"para_770"},{"text":"Agreement and the quarterly RFQs—all negotiated in the","paragraph_id":"para_771"},{"text":"United States by Seagate Technology LLC—set the U.S.","paragraph_id":"para_772"},{"text":"prices for suspension assemblies, which in turn set the prices","paragraph_id":"para_773"},{"text":"of the foreign suspension assembly purchases. As discussed,","paragraph_id":"para_774"},{"text":"Seagate has provided evidence that its foreign subsidiaries","paragraph_id":"para_775"},{"text":"lacked any authority over the price, quantity, or timing of","paragraph_id":"para_776"},{"text":"their orders. They had to follow the lead of U.S.-based","paragraph_id":"para_777"},{"text":"Seagate Technology LLC and entered orders at the (inflated)","paragraph_id":"para_778"},{"text":"prices negotiated by Seagate Technology LLC’s CMT unit.","paragraph_id":"para_779"},{"text":"At oral argument, NHK admitted that suspension assembly","paragraph_id":"para_780"},{"text":"prices were negotiated not per transaction but “quarterly”—","paragraph_id":"para_781"},{"text":"i.e., through the RFQ process. Thus, the higher U.S. prices","paragraph_id":"para_782"},{"text":"for suspension assemblies resulting from NHK’s price-","paragraph_id":"para_783"},{"text":"fixing would have directly caused Seagate’s foreign","paragraph_id":"para_784"},{"text":"subsidiaries to overpay. Or as Seagate would have it, there","paragraph_id":"para_785"},{"text":"only was one price, the U.S. and foreign prices being “one","paragraph_id":"para_786"},{"text":"and the same.”","paragraph_id":"para_787"},{"text":"The district court credited this evidence in its May 15","paragraph_id":"para_788"},{"text":"order, finding that Seagate Technology LLC’s U.S.-based","paragraph_id":"para_789"},{"text":"“agreement[s] governed the sales when ‘purchase orders’ for","paragraph_id":"para_790"},{"text":"SAs were placed by Seagate Thailand” including as to price.","paragraph_id":"para_791"},{"text":"The court in its November 17 order also acknowledged","paragraph_id":"para_792"},{"text":"Seagate’s theory that “the prices for SAs to be charged to","paragraph_id":"para_793"},{"text":"26 SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD.","paragraph_id":"para_794"},{"text":"Seagate entities located outside the United States were set”","paragraph_id":"para_795"},{"text":"directly by the tainted “agreements in the [U.S.].” Yet the","paragraph_id":"para_796"},{"text":"district court called this theory “essentially the same” as In","paragraph_id":"para_797"},{"text":"re DRAM, 546 F.3d at 988–89. The court observed, “[T]hat","paragraph_id":"para_798"},{"text":"the conspiracy had effects in the United States and abroad,","paragraph_id":"para_799"},{"text":"does not show that the effect in the United States, rather than","paragraph_id":"para_800"},{"text":"the overall price-fixing conspiracy itself, proximately caused","paragraph_id":"para_801"},{"text":"the effect abroad.” In re HDD, 2023 WL 8007985, at *4","paragraph_id":"para_802"},{"text":"(quoting In re DRAM, 546 F.3d at 988).","paragraph_id":"para_803"},{"text":"We believe the district court erred in reading In re DRAM","paragraph_id":"para_804"},{"text":"as categorically holding that rigged U.S. prices cannot","paragraph_id":"para_805"},{"text":"proximately cause injuries abroad. In that case, we rejected","paragraph_id":"para_806"},{"text":"the tenuous theory that higher U.S. prices for computer","paragraph_id":"para_807"},{"text":"memory chips (i.e., the domestic effect) proximately caused","paragraph_id":"para_808"},{"text":"higher global pricing (i.e., the foreign injury) because the","paragraph_id":"para_809"},{"text":"plaintiff relied on the interconnected nature of the computer","paragraph_id":"para_810"},{"text":"memory chip market and the leading role of U.S. buyers.","paragraph_id":"para_811"},{"text":"546 F.3d at 984. Relying on a chain of inferences about","paragraph_id":"para_812"},{"text":"global pricing of memory chips, the plaintiff in In re DRAM","paragraph_id":"para_813"},{"text":"did “not sufficiently allege a theory that the higher U.S.","paragraph_id":"para_814"},{"text":"prices proximately caused [the plaintiff’s] foreign injury of","paragraph_id":"para_815"},{"text":"having to pay higher prices outside the United States.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_816"},{"text":"at 989. In short, there were links missing in the chain:","paragraph_id":"para_817"},{"text":"“Other actors or forces may have affected the foreign","paragraph_id":"para_818"},{"text":"prices.” Id. at 988.","paragraph_id":"para_819"},{"text":"Seagate’s theory, in contrast, is rooted in the certainty of","paragraph_id":"para_820"},{"text":"binding pricing contracts—not the complex vagaries of the","paragraph_id":"para_821"},{"text":"global pricing market. It does not rely on the alleged","paragraph_id":"para_822"},{"text":"equivalence of prices across global trading markets that","paragraph_id":"para_823"},{"text":"many courts have rejected. See id; see also Empagran, 542","paragraph_id":"para_824"},{"text":"SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD. 27","paragraph_id":"para_825"},{"text":"U.S. at 175. 5 Rather, Seagate explains exactly how","paragraph_id":"para_826"},{"text":"“[d]efendants’ activities resulted in the U.S. prices directly","paragraph_id":"para_827"},{"text":"setting the worldwide price” and thus causing the foreign","paragraph_id":"para_828"},{"text":"antitrust injury: NHK and a competitor conspired to fix","paragraph_id":"para_829"},{"text":"prices, setting inflated U.S. prices (i.e., the domestic effect)","paragraph_id":"para_830"},{"text":"that Seagate’s foreign entities then accepted as a matter of","paragraph_id":"para_831"},{"text":"company policy and contractual requirements (i.e., the","paragraph_id":"para_832"},{"text":"foreign injury). In re DRAM, 546 F.3d at 989.","paragraph_id":"para_833"},{"text":"We acknowledge, however, that factual questions exist","paragraph_id":"para_834"},{"text":"about whether the post-RFQ prices truly set and limited what","paragraph_id":"para_835"},{"text":"the foreign subsidiaries could pay. For example, was","paragraph_id":"para_836"},{"text":"Seagate Singapore controlled just as Seagate Thailand was","paragraph_id":"para_837"},{"text":"for suspension assembly purchases, and did they always use","paragraph_id":"para_838"},{"text":"the same price? These would be best for the district court to","paragraph_id":"para_839"},{"text":"consider: While we suspect Seagate has adduced enough","paragraph_id":"para_840"},{"text":"evidence of a direct, proximate relationship to pass summary","paragraph_id":"para_841"},{"text":"judgment, see 15 U.S.C. § 6a(2), we remand to assess this","paragraph_id":"para_842"},{"text":"issue.","paragraph_id":"para_843"},{"text":"C. Foreign antitrust injury is only eligible for relief when","paragraph_id":"para_844"},{"text":"U.S. commerce is first harmed.","paragraph_id":"para_845"},{"text":"We conclude with a few remarks on why this case is","paragraph_id":"para_846"},{"text":"different from other cases involving foreign antitrust","paragraph_id":"para_847"},{"text":"injuries. Opening our federal courts to an injury like this one","paragraph_id":"para_848"},{"text":"may seem extraordinary at first blush: After all, a foreign","paragraph_id":"para_849"},{"text":"5 In Empagran, the Court held that the “domestic effect” exception did","paragraph_id":"para_850"},{"text":"not apply because it “assumed that the anticompetitive conduct here","paragraph_id":"para_851"},{"text":"independently caused foreign injury; that is, the conduct’s domestic","paragraph_id":"para_852"},{"text":"effects did not help to bring about that foreign injury.” 542 U.S. at 175","paragraph_id":"para_853"},{"text":"(emphasis added). The Court used the word “independent” 35 times in","paragraph_id":"para_854"},{"text":"the opinion, underscoring that the domestic effect must cause the foreign","paragraph_id":"para_855"},{"text":"injury. Here, Seagate appears to have adduced evidence that its foreign","paragraph_id":"para_856"},{"text":"injuries are not independent of the conspiracy’s domestic effects.","paragraph_id":"para_857"},{"text":"28 SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD.","paragraph_id":"para_858"},{"text":"company bought a price-fixed good from another foreign","paragraph_id":"para_859"},{"text":"company abroad. Why should that foreign company have","paragraph_id":"para_860"},{"text":"access to our courts based on our laws? Indeed, the Seventh","paragraph_id":"para_861"},{"text":"Circuit’s decision in Motorola, 775 F.3d 816, offers valid","paragraph_id":"para_862"},{"text":"reasons to tread cautiously in the realm of extraterritorial","paragraph_id":"para_863"},{"text":"jurisdiction. Although that case ultimately was decided","paragraph_id":"para_864"},{"text":"based on standing rather than the FTAIA, see Hui Hsiung,","paragraph_id":"para_865"},{"text":"778 F.3d at 760, it flagged the practical problems of","paragraph_id":"para_866"},{"text":"redressing wholly foreign injuries in American courts.","paragraph_id":"para_867"},{"text":"“[T]he immediate victims of the price fixing","paragraph_id":"para_868"},{"text":"were [Motorola’s] foreign subsidiaries,","paragraph_id":"para_869"},{"text":"and . . . U.S. antitrust laws are not to be used","paragraph_id":"para_870"},{"text":"for injury to foreign customers.” Motorola,","paragraph_id":"para_871"},{"text":"775 F.3d at 820. “Companies operate","paragraph_id":"para_872"},{"text":"overseas . . . to take advantage of many legal","paragraph_id":"para_873"},{"text":"provisions of that country: labor law,","paragraph_id":"para_874"},{"text":"environmental law, and tax law.” Id. at 827.","paragraph_id":"para_875"},{"text":"“The mind boggles at the . . . number of","paragraph_id":"para_876"},{"text":"antitrust suits that major American","paragraph_id":"para_877"},{"text":"corporations could file against the","paragraph_id":"para_878"},{"text":"multitudinous suppliers of their prolific","paragraph_id":"para_879"},{"text":"foreign subsidiaries if Motorola had its way.”","paragraph_id":"para_880"},{"text":"Id. at 826 (all citations omitted).","paragraph_id":"para_881"},{"text":"The court thus held that Motorola’s parent entity—Motorola","paragraph_id":"para_882"},{"text":"Mobility LLC—could not sue on its subsidiaries’ behalf for","paragraph_id":"para_883"},{"text":"the injuries the subsidiaries suffered abroad. Id. at 820, 825","paragraph_id":"para_884"},{"text":"(declining “to give Motorola rights to take the place of its","paragraph_id":"para_885"},{"text":"foreign companies and sue on their behalf under U.S.","paragraph_id":"para_886"},{"text":"antitrust law”).","paragraph_id":"para_887"},{"text":"These appear valid points, but the facts and context of","paragraph_id":"para_888"},{"text":"our case are significantly different. If we look deeper, our","paragraph_id":"para_889"},{"text":"SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD. 29","paragraph_id":"para_890"},{"text":"holding is consistent with the Supreme Court’s rule in","paragraph_id":"para_891"},{"text":"Empagran, considerations of judicial policy, and the","paragraph_id":"para_892"},{"text":"decisions of our sister circuits.","paragraph_id":"para_893"},{"text":"First off, the Seventh Circuit in Motorola did not","paragraph_id":"para_894"},{"text":"substantially grapple with the FTAIA’s language or the case","paragraph_id":"para_895"},{"text":"law construing that statutory text, and instead only","paragraph_id":"para_896"},{"text":"glancingly referenced them—perhaps because its holding","paragraph_id":"para_897"},{"text":"was based on standing for a derivative buyer, not the FTAIA.","paragraph_id":"para_898"},{"text":"As a policy matter, the Seventh Circuit advocated a bright-","paragraph_id":"para_899"},{"text":"line rule that American courts should not entertain Sherman","paragraph_id":"para_900"},{"text":"Act claims based on foreign injuries because the harmed","paragraph_id":"para_901"},{"text":"parties could seek relief under the laws of the foreign","paragraph_id":"para_902"},{"text":"country. Motorola, 775 F.3d at 820. But the parties here","paragraph_id":"para_903"},{"text":"(correctly) agree that the FTAIA does not bar foreign","paragraph_id":"para_904"},{"text":"injuries from relief under that statute so long as the required","paragraph_id":"para_905"},{"text":"domestic effect and proximate cause are shown. As the","paragraph_id":"para_906"},{"text":"Supreme Court has noted, “Congress [did not] place the","paragraph_id":"para_907"},{"text":"relevant words ‘gives rise to a claim’ in the FTAIA to","paragraph_id":"para_908"},{"text":"suggest any geographical limitation.” Empagran, 542 U.S.","paragraph_id":"para_909"},{"text":"at 174 (citing 15 U.S.C. § 6a); see also Empagran, 417 F.3d","paragraph_id":"para_910"},{"text":"at 1269 (“FTAIA’s ‘domestic effects’ requirement ‘does not","paragraph_id":"para_911"},{"text":"exclude all persons abroad from recovering under the","paragraph_id":"para_912"},{"text":"antitrust laws of the United States’”) (citation omitted). And","paragraph_id":"para_913"},{"text":"as we explained earlier, the domestic effect of higher U.S.","paragraph_id":"para_914"},{"text":"prices gave rise to the foreign injury suffered by Seagate","paragraph_id":"para_915"},{"text":"Thailand and Seagate Singapore because they adopted those","paragraph_id":"para_916"},{"text":"rigged U.S. pricing in buying the suspension assemblies.","paragraph_id":"para_917"},{"text":"Second, we are not confronted with a typical foreign","paragraph_id":"para_918"},{"text":"injury here but rather a case suffused with domestic","paragraph_id":"para_919"},{"text":"elements. Seagate Singapore and Seagate Thailand suffered","paragraph_id":"para_920"},{"text":"injuries because of the price-fixing first inflicted on U.S. soil","paragraph_id":"para_921"},{"text":"and suffered by Americans. NHK admitted it entered into a","paragraph_id":"para_922"},{"text":"conspiracy to “fix the prices of . . . suspension assemblies to","paragraph_id":"para_923"},{"text":"30 SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD.","paragraph_id":"para_924"},{"text":"be sold in the United States and elsewhere.” Nearly all the","paragraph_id":"para_925"},{"text":"misconduct in this case—whether bid rigging, illegal job","paragraph_id":"para_926"},{"text":"posts, and so on—either targeted or centered on the United","paragraph_id":"para_927"},{"text":"States because fixing U.S. commercial activity meant","paragraph_id":"para_928"},{"text":"inflating the price of suspension assemblies everywhere.","paragraph_id":"para_929"},{"text":"According to Empagran, the Sherman Act very much was","paragraph_id":"para_930"},{"text":"intended to cover harm like this. 542 U.S. at 163. Put","paragraph_id":"para_931"},{"text":"another way, if a claim for foreign injury passes the FTAIA’s","paragraph_id":"para_932"},{"text":"proximate cause test, then such foreign harm no longer is","paragraph_id":"para_933"},{"text":"“independent” of the domestic harm that is properly the","paragraph_id":"para_934"},{"text":"province of our courts—the harms are “intertwined.” Id. at","paragraph_id":"para_935"},{"text":"166. Simply put, Americans too were harmed by NHK’s","paragraph_id":"para_936"},{"text":"price-fixing, even if foreign companies are the ones suing","paragraph_id":"para_937"},{"text":"based on their injuries suffered abroad.6 In such a unique","paragraph_id":"para_938"},{"text":"scenario, we can and must allow civil claimants to claim","paragraph_id":"para_939"},{"text":"damages, especially given the government’s decision not to","paragraph_id":"para_940"},{"text":"seek restitution in its criminal prosecution because of its","paragraph_id":"para_941"},{"text":"assumption that civil remedies would be available to private","paragraph_id":"para_942"},{"text":"parties.","paragraph_id":"para_943"},{"text":"And because the FTAIA imposes very stringent “direct","paragraph_id":"para_944"},{"text":"effect” and proximate cause requirements, it ensures that any","paragraph_id":"para_945"},{"text":"foreign injuries covered by the Sherman Act are the direct","paragraph_id":"para_946"},{"text":"result of harm to United States commerce—just as Congress","paragraph_id":"para_947"},{"text":"intended. See Empagran, 542 U.S. at 163 (citing House","paragraph_id":"para_948"},{"text":"Report). Tenuous or speculative injuries will not pass this","paragraph_id":"para_949"},{"text":"test. See, e.g., In re DRAM, 546 F.3d at 989–90 (dismissing","paragraph_id":"para_950"},{"text":"theory of causation that was too vague, speculative, and","paragraph_id":"para_951"},{"text":"could not be explained by counsel at oral argument). Nor","paragraph_id":"para_952"},{"text":"will indirect or modest effect on domestic commerce—it","paragraph_id":"para_953"},{"text":"6 To be fair, Americans will not directly reap the benefits of any damages","paragraph_id":"para_954"},{"text":"award in this case. But the deterrent effect on future anticompetitive","paragraph_id":"para_955"},{"text":"behavior will still benefit the United States.","paragraph_id":"para_956"},{"text":"SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD. 31","paragraph_id":"para_957"},{"text":"must be “direct” and “substantial.” We thus do not see our","paragraph_id":"para_958"},{"text":"decision as opening U.S. courts to a flood of lawsuits from","paragraph_id":"para_959"},{"text":"suppliers overseas.","paragraph_id":"para_960"},{"text":"Finally, the international comity concerns raised in","paragraph_id":"para_961"},{"text":"Motorola are addressed (or perhaps outweighed) by the","paragraph_id":"para_962"},{"text":"price-fixing’s substantial impact on United States","paragraph_id":"para_963"},{"text":"commerce. See 775 F.3d at 824. As the Court noted in","paragraph_id":"para_964"},{"text":"Empagran, we “have long held that application of our","paragraph_id":"para_965"},{"text":"antitrust laws to foreign anticompetitive conduct is . . .","paragraph_id":"para_966"},{"text":"consistent with principles of prescriptive comity[] insofar as","paragraph_id":"para_967"},{"text":"they reflect a legislative effort to redress domestic” harm.","paragraph_id":"para_968"},{"text":"542 U.S. at 165. International comity may have to be cast","paragraph_id":"para_969"},{"text":"aside when foreign misconduct harms Americans. When","paragraph_id":"para_970"},{"text":"foreigners engage in unlawful behavior in the United States","paragraph_id":"para_971"},{"text":"that harms Americans, we need not reflexively close our","paragraph_id":"para_972"},{"text":"courthouse doors just because another foreign company","paragraph_id":"para_973"},{"text":"takes the lead against such illegal conduct.","paragraph_id":"para_974"},{"text":"* * * *","paragraph_id":"para_975"},{"text":"Finally, we affirm the district court’s determination that","paragraph_id":"para_976"},{"text":"Seagate Thailand was not a mere purchasing agent for","paragraph_id":"para_977"},{"text":"Seagate Technology LLC because it did not purchase the","paragraph_id":"para_978"},{"text":"suspension assemblies “for” Seagate LLC but bought them","paragraph_id":"para_979"},{"text":"for its own purposes. But the district court’s statement that","paragraph_id":"para_980"},{"text":"Seagate’s Second Amended Complaint “includes no factual","paragraph_id":"para_981"},{"text":"allegations that any Seagate Plaintiff indirectly purchased an","paragraph_id":"para_982"},{"text":"SA or a product containing an SA” appears to be incorrect.","paragraph_id":"para_983"},{"text":"While indirect purchases are not the focus of the Second","paragraph_id":"para_984"},{"text":"Amended Complaint, it repeatedly alleges that Seagate","paragraph_id":"para_985"},{"text":"Technology LLC bought suspension assemblies; these","paragraph_id":"para_986"},{"text":"purchases necessarily were indirect. Moreover, Seagate’s","paragraph_id":"para_987"},{"text":"Sherman Act claim alleges that NHK “[sold] suspension","paragraph_id":"para_988"},{"text":"assemblies to customers in the U.S. or elsewhere for","paragraph_id":"para_989"},{"text":"32 SEAGATE TECH. LLC V. NHK SPRING CO. LTD.","paragraph_id":"para_990"},{"text":"incorporation into products sold in the U.S. at","paragraph_id":"para_991"},{"text":"supracompetitive prices”—which appears to state a pass-on","paragraph_id":"para_992"},{"text":"theory of harm.","paragraph_id":"para_993"},{"text":"Because an allegation under FED. R. CIV. PROC. 8 does","paragraph_id":"para_994"},{"text":"not require any magic words but only a short and plain","paragraph_id":"para_995"},{"text":"statement of the claim, Seagate Technology LLC may be","paragraph_id":"para_996"},{"text":"entitled to test whether its alleged high degree of control over","paragraph_id":"para_997"},{"text":"Seagate Thailand and Seagate Singapore gives it standing to","paragraph_id":"para_998"},{"text":"sue as an indirect purchaser of price-fixed suspension","paragraph_id":"para_999"},{"text":"assemblies. See Ill. Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720, 736","paragraph_id":"para_1000"},{"text":"n.16 (1977); Del. Valley Surgical Supply Inc. v. Johnson &","paragraph_id":"para_1001"},{"text":"Johnson, 523 F.3d 1116, 1123 n.1 (9th Cir. 2008)","paragraph_id":"para_1002"},{"text":"(recognizing “standing for an indirect purchaser if . . . the","paragraph_id":"para_1003"},{"text":"direct purchaser is owned or controlled by the indirect","paragraph_id":"para_1004"},{"text":"purchaser”); see also In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litig., 686","paragraph_id":"para_1005"},{"text":"F.3d 741, 749 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[I]ndirect purchasers may","paragraph_id":"para_1006"},{"text":"sue when customers of the direct purchaser own or control","paragraph_id":"para_1007"},{"text":"the direct purchaser . . . .”). We leave it to the district court","paragraph_id":"para_1008"},{"text":"in the first instance to determine whether Seagate","paragraph_id":"para_1009"},{"text":"Technology LLC has a viable indirect purchaser claim under","paragraph_id":"para_1010"},{"text":"Illinois Brick.","paragraph_id":"para_1011"},{"text":"CONCLUSION","paragraph_id":"para_1012"},{"text":"We vacate the district court’s May 15, 2023 and","paragraph_id":"para_1013"},{"text":"November 17, 2023 orders granting partial summary","paragraph_id":"para_1014"},{"text":"judgment for NHK and remand for further proceedings","paragraph_id":"para_1015"},{"text":"consistent with this opinion.","paragraph_id":"para_1016"},{"text":"VACATED AND REMANDED.","paragraph_id":"para_1017"}],"word_count":8511,"cites":["509 U.S. 764","542 U.S. 155","431 U.S. 720","546 F.3d 981","986 F.3d 1253","265 F.3d 1017","364 F.3d 1057","379 F.3d 672","778 F.3d 738","775\nF.3d 816","417 F.3d 1267","775 F.3d 816","523 F.3d 1116","686\nF.3d 741"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"c0e3f3449e5d825151104275b520bbed89850ee04415380b0b9439bc2e2efac1","source_url":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/01/08/24-4470.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-10-06T16:15:32.472+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca9-24-4470-2026-01-08","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca9-24-4470-2026-01-08","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca9-24-4470-2026-01-08","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca9-24-4470-2026-01-08","neighbors":[],"verification":{"stored_sha256":"c0e3f3449e5d825151104275b520bbed89850ee04415380b0b9439bc2e2efac1","recomputed_sha256":"c0e3f3449e5d825151104275b520bbed89850ee04415380b0b9439bc2e2efac1","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-20T05:12:37.655Z"}},"hash":"sha256:3b7162d227656b6edf65117c37aba59e78c37c43cd4bdab96807b255855951de","version":"legal-2026-10-20","expires":"2026-10-21T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-20+legal-2026-10-20+2026-10-20T03:54:38","content_hash":"sha256:3b7162d227656b6edf65117c37aba59e78c37c43cd4bdab96807b255855951de","revalidate_after":"2026-10-20T06:12:38.108Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-24-4470-2026-01-08","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca9-24-4470-2026-01-08"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca9-24-4470-2026-01-08"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca9-24-4470-2026-01-08"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/ca9-24-4470-2026-01-08","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-1d0823e45c0539d8c3245f55b9202694","response_hash":"sha256:3b7162d227656b6edf65117c37aba59e78c37c43cd4bdab96807b255855951de"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T05:37:03.542Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aca9-24-4470-2026-01-08&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":45435}}