This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Aaron M. Panner

| Jan. 25, 2023

Jan. 25, 2023

Aaron M. Panner

See more on Aaron M. Panner

Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Aaron M. Panner concentrates on antitrust law and appellate litigation.

Panner has represented leading companies and individuals in high-stakes litigation in district courts and courts of appeals across the county and has argued six cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

He was directly involved in several of the most significant Supreme Court antitrust victories in the last two decades.

"I've been involved in a number of matters that have presented really fundamental antitrust issues. I've been fortunate to work with excellent co-counsel, excellent in-house counsel, and even excellent opposing counsel, so it's been a great experience," Panner said. "Earlier in my career, I did a lot of work for some of the phone companies at a time when they were facing a lot of interesting antitrust issues."

One of those cases was against Panner's client Pacific Bell, which was accused by Linkline Communications of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act. Linkline claimed that Pacific Bell charged competing internet providers too much for use of its existing phone lines to deliver internet service. Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438 (2009). The Supreme Court ruled in Pacific Bell's favor, rejecting Linkline's "price squeeze" claim.

Panner also represented iPhone owners in one of the most significant victories for private antitrust plaintiffs in the Supreme Court's recent history. Apple Inc. v. Pepper et al., 139 S. Ct. 1514 (2019).

This lawsuit arose out of Apple's handling of the sale of apps for its iPhone devices. The case involved whether iPhone owners could sue Apple for unlawful overcharges on iPhone apps. The Supreme Court held that iPhone owners were direct purchasers of apps from Apple, and therefore had standing to sue.

Panner said his greatest lessons in the courtroom have stemmed from working side-by-side with a diverse group of esteemed colleagues.

"I have learned a great deal from working with some terrific lawyers, both colleagues from my firm and colleagues from other firms," Panner said. "The experience of working with excellent lawyers on challenging and interesting matters has been and continues to be the highlight of my practice."

#370790

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390

Send a letter to the editor:

Email: letters@dailyjournal.com