The 11th U.S. Appeals Court, Atlanta, ruled Covad can pursue cert...

pursue its claims.” He said “many, including BellSouth, believed that the Supreme Court’s Trinko decision made antitrust suits challenging monopoly abuses by incumbent companies impossible.” He said he was “pleased” the 11th Circuit reaffirmed that “phone companies will still be held accountable for such abuses under the antitrust laws.” Covad’s antitrust claims go back to 2000, when the CLEC alleged BellSouth used its monopoly power to try to thwart competition in the Internet access market. The claims were dismissed by the U.S. Dist. Court, Atlanta, on the grounds that they were barred by the Telecom Act of 1996. In Aug. 2002, the 11th Circuit reversed the dist. court ruling, reinstating Covad’s antitrust claims and remanding the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The Supreme Court subsequently issued a ruling in the Trinko case, which upheld the dismissal of an antitrust case alleging a single breach of an incumbent phone company’s duty under the Telecom Act to share its networks with competitors. The Supreme Court also remanded the 11th Circuit decision for further action to comport with Trinko. Covad said the parties had 21 days to ask the full court to rehear the case. A BellSouth spokesman said his company was “evaluating our position and what steps we will take next.” He said he was “happy” that “the bulk of the [Covad] claims” in the case had been thrown out. Telecom attorney Andrew Lipman said the 11th Circuit decision was “significant for Covad, but each [similar antitrust] case has to go forward on a case-be-case basis.” He said while the decision in Trinko “didn’t completely foreclose the ability of competitors to bring antitrust suits… it required [them to be] much more narrow. Complaints have to be drafted with surgical precision to avoid raising causes of action that otherwise could be raised under the Telecom Act.”