## Facts

- India, Iran, and the Philippines sued six pharmaceutical manufacturers for treble damages under § 4 of the Clayton Act after purchasing broad-spectrum antibiotics.
- The complaints alleged a conspiracy to restrain and monopolize trade in violation of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.
- Alleged conduct included price fixing, market division, and fraud on the U.S. Patent Office affecting antibiotic markets.
- Each plaintiff asserted it was a sovereign foreign state (or sovereign and independent government) and a commercial purchaser injured in its business or property by the alleged antitrust violations.
- Defendants argued foreign nations are not “persons” entitled to sue for treble damages under Clayton Act § 4.
- The district court rejected that defense; the Eighth Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether a foreign nation otherwise entitled to sue in U.S. courts qualifies as a “person” under § 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15, and may therefore maintain a treble-damages antitrust action.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Eighth Circuit.
- A foreign nation otherwise entitled to sue in U.S. courts is a “person” within the meaning of Clayton Act § 4.
- Foreign sovereign plaintiffs may seek treble damages under federal antitrust laws to the same extent as other plaintiffs.

## Legal Principles

- “Any person” in Clayton Act § 4 is construed broadly in light of the antitrust laws’ remedial aims.
- Congress did not limit § 4’s treble-damages remedy to domestic victims; the antitrust laws reach commerce involving foreign countries and the statutory definition of “person” expressly includes foreign corporations.
- Section 4 serves both deterrence (depriving violators of unlawful gains) and compensation; excluding foreign sovereign victims would impair both purposes.
- A foreign sovereign acting as a commercial market participant can suffer antitrust injury like private plaintiffs and domestic States; absent contrary statutory direction, it is eligible for the same § 4 remedy.
- Foreign relations concerns do not justify narrowing § 4 where access to U.S. courts by foreign sovereigns is generally available to governments recognized by and at peace with the United States, a determination committed to the Executive.

## Conclusion

The Court held that foreign nations recognized as eligible to sue in U.S. courts are “persons” under Clayton Act § 4 and may pursue treble-damages claims for injuries from antitrust violations when they are harmed as commercial purchasers.


Pfizer Inc. v. Gov’t of India, 434 U.S. 308 (1978)