Adam B. Wolfson

Adam B. Wolfson, a partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, carved out his space in antitrust law by focusing on significant cases involving Big Tech, which are expected to have far-reaching implications for the industry.

He’s representing AliveCor, a company leveraging artificial intelligence for virtual cardiology services, in a lawsuit that alleges Apple copied its heart health technologies designed for smartwatches and subsequently altered its heart rate algorithm to hinder AliveCor and other similar app providers from operating on the Apple Watch. AliveCor, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 4:21-cv-03958-JSW (N.D. Cal., filed May 25, 2021).

This move by Apple, as claimed by AliveCor, constitutes technological tying and aftermarket monopolization. The case has progressed through various legal phases and is poised for trial, where AliveCor seeks over $1 billion in damages. Trial is scheduled for February 2024.

“In the Ninth Circuit, product redesign cases are intentionally difficult to bring—in order to maintain incentives to innovate—but the proper case, like this one, raises incredibly important questions surrounding when design changes by dominant platform owners go too far,” Wolfson said.

Wolfson also had to overcome significant challenges in a consumer antitrust class action against Ticketmaster and its parent corporation, Live Nation. This case centered around defeating a motion to compel arbitration by Ticketmaster, which historically avoided litigation due to its arbitration agreement imposed on ticket buyers. Heckman, et al. v. Ticketmaster LLC, et al., 2:22-cv-00047 (C.D. Cal., filed Jan. 24, 2022).

The case took a turn when Ticketmaster changed its terms to a new arbitral forum with biased provisions. Wolfson’s team challenged this change as unconscionable, leading to a detailed opinion that found the change as such and denied the motion to compel arbitration.

“We are now on appeal, but, assuming the decision holds, this will be the first time Ticketmaster has to face antitrust claims in court from consumers in, well, I don’t know how long,” Wolfson said.

Another notable case led by Wolfson is 10X Genomics, Inc. et al. v. Vizgen, Inc. Here, he crafts and oversees counterclaims on behalf of Vizgen, Inc. in a Delaware-based patent infringement suit between two life sciences companies.

The counterclaims assert that 10x Genomics and Harvard colluded to monopolize the single-cell spatial transcriptomics market through an “open early, closed late” scheme. This scheme involved Harvard luring Vizgen into the market with its patented technology, followed by a partnership with 10x Genomics to assert separate patents against Vizgen, effectively trying to exclude them from the market. Wolfson’s team successfully defeated a motion to dismiss by Harvard and 10x Genomics, moving the case into the fact discovery phase.

“The reason this case is important is because it is effectively an informal analog to standard-essential patent antitrust cases and expands on the same basic rationale from those cases (i.e., harm to competition through what is essentially an about-face on technology),” Wolfson said. “As we progress, this case should help define the situations where about faces of this type can lead to antitrust liability and further help define what practices are and are not allowed in what are otherwise incredibly competitive industries.”