Arbitration Compelled For Industry-Wide Antitrust Claim Made Against A Single Defendant Despite Active Participation In Multidistrict Litigation For Over A Year

Nokia Corp., et al. v. AU Optronics Corp. (AUO), et al., MDL No. 1827 (N.D. Cal. July 2011), orders arbitration on the basis of reasoning that is noteworthy for the litigation of international disputes. Nokia's complaint alleges a price-fixing conspiracy by suppliers of liquid crystal display (LCD) panels. AUO asserted, as its fifty-second affirmative defense: To the extent Nokia has agreed to arbitration or chosen a different form for the resolution of its claims against AUO, its claims are barred and should be dismissed".

Still, the District Court granted the motion to compel arbitration.

First, the District Court held that international commercial arbitration agreements were governed by the New York Convention and that the "federal policy favoring enforcement of arbitration agreements 'applies with special force in the field of international commerce" (quoting Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 489 U.S. 614 (1985).