Carl W. Hittinger focuses his practice on commercial and civil rights litigation with particular emphasis on antitrust and unfair competition matters, in which he counsels clients on all aspects of civil and criminal antitrust and unfair competition law. He is the chair of the Philadelphia Litigation Department.

DLA Piper's Antitrust practice group, of which Mr. Hittinger is a member, was recently ranked as the #1 Antitrust Litigation practice by Martindale-Hubbell®, according to the total number of antitrust cases in which the firm has represented clients in US Federal District Courts during the prior two years.

Mr. Hittinger has 30 years of experience successfully trying numerous, lengthy jury and non-jury cases before federal and state courts across the country. He also regularly represents corporations in investigations and actions brought by federal and state government and regulatory agencies.

He has handled matters before the First, Second, Third, District of Columbia, Fourth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court of the United States. Among his clients have been such major corporations and institutions as Sara Lee Corporation, adidas-Salomon, Church & Dwight, The Home Depot, Citibank, Sovereign Bank, Nichia Corporation, Glaxo Smith-Kline, Young Presidents Organization International, Centric Group, EnerSys, Wayne Memorial Hospital, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, US Healthcare, Hormel Corporation, Giant Food, Inc., Wheaton Industries, Temple University, Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., Occidental Chemical Corporation and DuPont. He has also represented such family-owned businesses as Bobrick Washroom Equipment, Inc., Peerless Boilers, Associated Communications Corporation, Shore Slurry Seal, Inc., Ambulatory Surgical Services, Accord Health Service and Priority Care Ambulance.

After nine years of complex and contentious litigation, Mr. Hittinger was successful in having the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dismiss all antitrust and unfair competition claims brought against California-based Bobrick Washroom Equipment, Inc., by a rival competitor which sought over $31 million in damages and fees. The Supreme Court of the United States recently affirmed the Third Circuit.

After law school, Mr. Hittinger clerked for Chief Judge Emeritus Louis C. Bechtle of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for more than two years. He then joined Dilworth, Paxson PLLC in 1981, before moving to Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP in 1992 and then to Stevens & Lee in 1998, where he chaired the Antitrust and Unfair Competition practice group.

He has been selected by his peers as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer in the area of Antitrust Litigation in every year since the inception of this accolade. In 2009, he was selected as a Super Lawyer in the nationwide Corporate Counsel Edition in the area of Antitrust Litigation.

Representative Cases

• Church & Dwight v. Mayer Laboratories, Civil Action No. 3:07-cv-1521 (D.N.J.), pending case involving alleged predatory conduct under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
• Santana Products, Inc. v. Bobrick Washroom Equipment, Inc., 249 F.Supp. 2d 463 (M.D. Pa. 2003), affirmed in part and reversed in part. 401 F.3d 123 (3rd Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 734 (2005).
• Garr v. US Healthcare, Inc., 22 F.3d 1274 (3rd Cir. 1994) , shareholders action against client, resulting in dismissal and sanctions against plaintiff's counsel.
• Herbert v. Reinstein, Temple University School of Law and Temple University, 1994. US Dist. LEXIS 15234 (E.D.Pa. 1994), student dues process litigation against university client, successfully dismissed.
• Doe v. Abington Friends School, 480 F. 3d 252 (3d Cir. 2007), representing plaintiffs in Americans with Disabilities Act case, which was successfully reversed on appeal concerning issue of religious exemption.
• AM/COMM Antitrust Litigation, class action litigation against client resulting in denial of class certification and eventual settlement.
• DASA Antitrust Litigation, individual antitrust action against client resulting in eventual settlement.
• Horizons v. FMC. et al. (E.D. Pa. 1987), individual antitrust action for bid rigging, boycotting and price fixing resulting in early settlement by all defendants except client chemical manufacturer. Matter fully litigated by client resulting in insignificant settlement for costs.
• City of Philadelphia v. FMC. et al. (E.D. Pa. 1989), class action for price fixing and bid rigging in chemical industry settled on the eve of trial by client after all other defendants had settled. Served as Court appointed liaison counsel for defendants.
• City of St. Paul v. FMC. et al. (D. Minn. 1991), subsequent class action litigation to City of Philadelphia brought on behalf of indirect purchasers. Class certification denied and case severely limited through motions to dismiss.
• H&W v. Formosa Plastics (N.D. Miss. 1992), individual antitrust action for price fixing and monopolistic conduct in plastics industry, client not sued and case settled.
• Florida Antitrust Investigation (1992), criminal antitrust investigation by Florida Attorney General's Office of chemical manufacturers and distributors for price fixing and bid rigging, no prosecutions brought against client.
• Ohio Antitrust Investigation (1992), criminal antitrust investigation by Ohio Attorney General's Office of chemical manufacturers and distributors for possible price fixing and bid rigging, no prosecutions brought.
• Catfish Antitrust Litigation (E.D. Pa. and N.D. Miss. 1993), civil class action and DOJ criminal antitrust investigation against client food processor and other processors for price fixing and bid rigging.
• L&L v. Peerless Industries (M.D. Pa. 1995), civil action alleging price discrimination and related conspiracy by client in the residential boiler industry. Summary judgment granted on price discrimination claim.
• Pharmaceutical Antitrust Investigation (E.D. Pa. 1995), DOJ criminal antitrust investigation of possible bid rigging for government contracts. Investigation concluded without indictment.
• American International Container v. Diaz-Oliver v. Wheaton Industries (S.D. Fla. 1995), civil action for predatory pricing and attempted monopolization by clients.
• Acme Markets v. Giant Food. Inc. and Wharton Hardware (D.N.J. 1996), civil action involving anticompetitive real estate restrictive covenant. Case settled while appeal pending.
• Brand Name Prescription Drug Antitrust Litigation (N.D. 111. 1996), class and individual litigation against drug manufacturers and others alleging price discrimination and other conspiratorial activities.
• Baltimore Scrap Corp. v. David J. Joseph Co. et al. (D. Md. 1996), antitrust civil action for sham litigation and related anticompetitive conduct by competitor against client.
• Santana Products. Inc. v. Sylvester & Associates (E.D. N.Y. 1998), civil action for false and misleading advertisements and related alleged anti-competitive conduct by client.
• LCC v. Sara Lee Corp. (D.N.J. 1997), civil action for franchise termination and fraud against client. Obtained directed verdict for client after a seven week jury trial. Sanctions assessed against plaintiff for improper substitution of expert and seven experts excluded under Daubert. Case eventually settled.
• Peerless Heater Co. v. Mestek. Inc., et al. (E.D. Pa. 1998), civil action for false and misleading statements, predatory pricing, price discrimination and related anticompetitive conduct by competitor against client. Litigation settled on eve of jury trial.
• Shore Slurry Seal v. Koch Industries (E.D. Pa. 1999), civil actioning dispute with antitrust counterclaim for conspiracy to restrain trade.
• Ellen Memorial Health Care Center. Inc. v. Wayne Memorial Health System. Inc., et al. (M.D. Pa. 2001), civil action for false and misleading statements, related monopolistic and conspiratorial conduct by clients in alleged violation of antitrust laws and Lanham Act. Case voluntarily withdrawn by plaintiff after discovery was completed and subsequently dismissed by Court with prejudice.