Rohit K. Singla

SAN FRANCISCO - Rohit K. Singla does not typically defend straightforward price-fixing or monopoly cases. More often, he handles antitrust matters that raise questions the courts and law haven't yet answered.

"I tend to work on cases where the rules have not been developed," he said. "The cases I'm doing, the questions are more: 'Here's what happened. Should this be anti-competitive? Is it good? Is it bad?'"

He currently leads a Munger Tolles team representing Lyft in a novel class action by drivers alleging that his client and Uber engage in price-fixing by setting prices for rides. The drivers say that since they are independent contractors, they should be able to set their own rates.

Singla said the drivers are using antitrust law as a weapon to attack their true concern, which is their employment classification. Using antitrust law that way is an issue he and his colleagues have been considering carefully and discussing with a number of clients. Gill v. Uber Technologies Inc., 3:22-cv-04379 (N.D. Cal., filed July 28, 2022).

"Is it good for consumers that Lyft and Uber are setting these prices for rides or is it bad for consumers?" Singla asked. "That's the ultimate question."

It may take some years for antitrust law to develop an answer, he said.

He has been litigating another unsettled antitrust issue for at least a dozen years. That issue is how antitrust law should evaluate settlements of patent litigation between generic and brand-name drugmakers in so-called "reverse payment" or "pay-for-delay" cases.

Singla co-wrote the brief for major drugmakers in what he described as one of the most important Supreme Court antitrust cases in the last decade. FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 570 U.S. 136 (2013).

In its decision, the court ruled that the FTC could challenge agreements in which the maker of a successful medication pays a generic company to postpone producing its own version of the drug. The court held such deals were not presumptively illegal, as the FTC argued, but had to be evaluated under the rule of reason.

"For 10 years since then, parties including ourselves have been litigating to interpret the rule of reason." Singla said. "The Supreme Court didn't really provide a lot of guidance."

The Actavis case was part of litigation begun in 2009 concerning the brand-name drug AndroGel used to treat testosterone deficiency. Singla is representing drugmaker AbbVie in another case about the product in which major pharmaceutical wholesalers are seeking about $1 billion in damages. King Drug Co. of Florence Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 2:19-cv-03565 (E.D. Penn, filed Aug. 7, 2019).

He also has an active pro bono practice. Among other matters, he leads a team representing more than a dozen immigrant families separated at the border who have filed administrative tort claims against the federal government.