Joseph R. Saveri specializes in antitrust law and complex civil and class action litigation in state, federal and international arenas. With more than 25 years’ civil litigation experience, he has handled cases involving numerous industries including banking and financial services, insurance, energy, pharmaceuticals, agricultural products, computer hardware, computer software, travel and transportation, paper products, cosmetics, and consumer electronics. Representing individuals, consumers, small business owners, public officials, and heads of corporations negatively affected by monopolistic business practices, he has established himself as one of the country’s top litigators in the antitrust field.
Joe has a long track record in the fields of antitrust law and complex litigation. In 1987, he started his career doing general litigation work at the San Francisco law firm of McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen. In 1992, he joined the plaintiffs’ firm Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, where he founded and developed the firm’s Antitrust and intellectual property practice, which he established and chaired. He also served as the firm’s Managing Partner and Chair of the firm’s Antitrust and Intellectual Property practice group, which in 2012 was recognized as one of the top five practice groups in California. During 20 years at LCHB, he handled numerous groundbreaking and landmark cases.
In the course of his work at LCHB, Joe developed a highly-respected antitrust department and led his team in a number of high-profile antitrust lawsuits including: recent litigation against Apple, Google, Intel, Adobe Systems, Pixar, Lucasfilm, and other tech companies for illegally agreeing not to poach each other’s employees; a class action representing direct purchasers in price-fixing claims against TFT-LCD manufacturers; a class action lawsuit on behalf of consumers and others against Bayer for exclusionary drug pricing agreements involving the generic version of the drug Cipro; and another landmark class action against De Beers SA, the diamond company, for monopolizing the rough diamond trade. He also served as lead counsel in other state and federal trials involving brand-name prescription drug price-fixing and the pharmaceutical industry.
Joe has continued that work at the Joseph Saveri Law Firm, which he founded in May of 2012 to provide the highest quality legal work to clients throughout the United States. Since the inception of the firm, courts across the United States have appointed him and the law firm to leadership positions in important antitrust cases, class actions, and other complex litigation. Recent matters he has litigated include:
- Capacitors Price-Fixing: The firm is Sole Lead Counsel in a class action lawsuit alleging that global capacitor manufacturers conspired to fix prices, forcing direct purchasers to pay more. In January 2017, the Court approved an initial partial settlement of direct purchaser plaintiffs’ claims against five of 22 corporate defendant families for $32.6 million. The case is ongoing against the remaining defendants.
- Cipro Antitrust Litigation: The firm represents a class of California consumers and insurers who brought antitrust claims against Bayer Corporation, Barr Laboratories, and other generic drug manufacturers, alleging that the companies paid drug manufacturers to delay the release of a Cipro alternative. In May 2015, The California Supreme Court ruled in Plaintiffs’ favor. The case settled in 2017 for $399 million.
- Dental Equipment Antitrust Litigation: The firm represents dental equipment purchasers in a class action lawsuit alleging that three of the nation’s primary distributors of dental products illegally boycotted competitors in order to maintain and extend their dominant position in the market for dental supplies and equipment.
- Fiat Diesel Emissions Litigation: The firm represents U.S. consumers in a class action lawsuit against Fiat Chrysler Automobiles that charges the company with equipping some 3.0-liter EcoDiesel-powered vehicles with emissions-cheating devices that control emissions only when undergoing testing.
- Generic Drug Price-Fixing: The firm is on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee representing U.S. consumers and insurers in a multidistrict antitrust litigation accusing a large number of generic drug manufacturers with conspiring to fix and raise prices for 18 generic medications. In the past few years, prices for these drugs have skyrocketed by more than 1,000 percent. Consumers blame the companies for engineering these price hikes, eliminating the benefits of competition, and forcing them to pay exorbitant prices. The firm is also currently investigating many other generic drugs for potential class action claims.
- Global Distribution System (GDS) Technology Antitrust Litigation: The firm serves as Co-Lead Counsel on behalf of U.S. air travel consumers. The lawsuit alleges that leading providers of GDS technology imposed unlawful contractual constraints on airlines that remove the airlines’ leverage to negotiate lower GDS fees and to develop alternative technologies.
- High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation: The firm served as Co-Lead Counsel and obtained in September 2015 a court order approving a $415 million USD (NT $12.454 billion) settlement against Google and other defendants—the largest settlement ever obtained in an antitrust case brought on behalf of a class of employees.
- Lenovo Spyware Litigation: The firm represents purchasers of certain models of Lenovo notebook computers in a class action lawsuit alleging that Lenovo installed and concealed spyware, resulting in multiple violations of federal computer fraud, racketeering, and consumer protection laws as well as corollary and other common law claims under California, New York, and Ohio law.
- LG/Samsung Antitrust Litigation: The firm represents current and former LG and Samsung employees in a class action against the two electronics giants, alleging that they entered into an illegal no-poaching agreement that limits employee access to mobility and compensation.
- Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation: The firm serves as Liaison Counsel for Lidoderm End-Payors in a class action lawsuit against Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Teikoku Seiyaku Co., Inc., and Actavis Inc., along with their respective subsidiaries. The suit alleges that the companies entered into an illegal reverse pay agreement, forcing companies and consumers to pay higher prices for the Lidocaine-based pain patch, Lidoderm. In February 2017, Judge William H. Orrick granted the End-Payor Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
- Nomlaki Indians Litigation: The firm is Co-Lead Counsel in a lawsuit filed on behalf of the Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians against former tribal officials, alleging that certain former tribal officials and others formed and operated a RICO enterprise to loot tens of millions of dollars in tribal moneys that were ultimately used for their own personal benefit.
- Opana Antitrust Litigation: The firm represents California indirect pharmaceutical purchasers in a class action lawsuit against Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Impax Laboratories, alleging that Endo entered into an illegal reverse payment agreement with Impax to keep generic versions of the painkiller Opana ER off the market for several years.
- Qualcomm Antitrust Litigation: The firm represents Apple iPhone and iPad direct purchasers in a class action lawsuit against electronics manufacturer Qualcomm Inc. The suit alleges that Qualcomm inflated the prices plaintiffs paid for Apple iPhones and iPads by violating patent licensing agreements and illegally maintaining a monopoly in the market for baseband processors.
- Titanium Dioxide Antitrust Litigation: The firm served as Co-Lead Counsel to a class of direct purchasers of titanium dioxide in an antitrust price-fixing case against titanium dioxide manufacturers DuPont, Huntsman, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, and Kronos. This case produced a settlement of $165 million on the day before the trial was to commence.
- UFC Antitrust Litigation: The firm represents current and former Elite Professional Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) Fighters in a class action lawsuit against Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), alleging that UFC illegally acquired and maintained a monopoly and monopsony power over Elite Professional MMA fighters, and used that power to suppress their compensation.
Joe also is a frequent author of articles on antitrust and complex litigation issues, and a frequent lecturer on a variety of matters, including antitrust and discovery.
From 2010 through 2013, Joe has served as a Lawyer’s Representative for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. He also has served and serves on a number of court committees charged with developing rules and programs regarding complex litigation, ediscovery, and a variety of other matters.
An AV-Peer Review Rated Attorney by Martindale-Hubbell, Joe has been selected by peer and blue-ribbon panel review to the Best Lawyers in America for antitrust litigation, 2012–2016. He was named “Antitrust Attorney of the Year” in the Daily Journal/California Lawyer 2016 CLAY Awards. He has been named a Northern California “Super Lawyer” by Thomson Reuters’ Super Lawyers publication from 2006-2017, including the “Super Lawyers Top 100” in 2015-2016. He was named one of the “Top Attorneys in Antitrust Law” by the Super Lawyers Corporate Counsel Edition in 2010 and the Super Lawyer Business Edition from 2011-2016.
In 2014, Joe was awarded the “Antitrust Litigation Lawyer of the Year,” and his firm was recognized as the “Antitrust Litigation Law Firm of the Year” by ACQ5 magazine. He was also selected for inclusion in Who’s Who Legal: Competition, and was named a “Leading Labor & Employment Lawyer” in California by the Daily Journal Corporation’s editorial staff. He was recently named a “Band 1” (top-ranked) plaintiffs’ antitrust attorney for California and nationwide by Chambers USA, and was recently named “One to Watch” by Acquisition International magazine. On October 30, 2014, Law360 named Joe a “Titan Of The Plaintiffs’ Bar,” citing his leadership and vision in extending the reach of antitrust cases into new areas such as pharmaceutical reverse payments and “no-poach” agreements by high-tech employers. He also serves as an author of California State Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law, the legal treatise published by the State Bar of California’s Antitrust and Unfair Competition Section.