Ales Filipi, PhD

Ales (Bobby) Filipi co-chairs the Antitrust Practice at Bates White. He has broad research and consulting experience in the fields of microeconomics and industrial organization. He leads economic analyses in large antitrust matters involving allegations of collusion, market manipulation, and monopolization. Dr. Filipi′s work includes the application of economic principles to formulate theories of harm and to assess the possibility and likelihood of anticompetitive conduct. He also has extensive experience applying statistical methods to determine whether anticompetitive conduct occurred and to measure its impact.

Dr. Filipi works closely with leading law firms representing defendants and plaintiffs in civil litigation and before the US antitrust agencies. In addition to advising on issues of liability and economic damages, he supports clients in settlement negotiations and legal discovery.

Prior to joining Bates White, Dr. Filipi was an instructor at Stanford University, where he taught courses in graduate and undergraduate microeconomics.

PhD, Economics, Stanford University

MA, Economics, Central European University

BA, Economics, Masaryk University

• Served as consulting expert and supported testifying expert on behalf of a class of Canadian consumers alleging that most-favored-nation agreements between Amazon and third-party sellers resulted in elevated retail prices. 
• Served as lead consulting expert on behalf of defendants in In re Packaged Seafood Products Antitrust Litigation. Performed empirical analyses of potential damage exposure. 
• In In re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, analyzed liability-related evidence and transaction prices. Assisted with development of damage analyses, preparation of expert reports, and deposition. A California federal jury returned a verdict for one of several clients in the amount of $89.2 million.
• Served as one of lead consulting experts on behalf of plaintiff in Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc. 
• Supported testifying expert in Sprint T-Mobile merger on behalf of a coalition of state Attorneys General.
• Led expert support on behalf of the Government of Québec in the matter Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada. Analyzed design and performance of timber auctions.
• Served as lead consulting expert on behalf of a group of defendants in a class action alleging conspiracy to manipulate prices of natural gas. Assisted an economic expert with empirical analyses, expert reports, and deposition testimony.
• Supported multiple testifying experts working on behalf of direct and indirect corporate plaintiffs in the matter In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation. Performed economic analyses to assess damages. Analyzed defendant production and capital investment decisions. Evaluated empirical analyses of damages and market outcomes proffered by opposing experts.
• Led expert support on behalf of class Plaintiffs in the matter Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners alleging collusion in leveraged buyout transactions.
• Led expert support in Mansker v. Farmers Insurance Company of Washington, Butler and Snyder v. Farmers Insurance Company of Washington, and Merrill v. PEMCO Mutual Insurance Company, three matters concerning the diminution in vehicle market value after an accident.
• Provided extensive consulting services regarding economic damages for a coalition of direct action plaintiffs in In re Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust Litigation.
• Supported testifying expert working on behalf of American Specialty Health, Inc. (ASH) in its exclusive dealing suit against Healthways, Inc.
• In the matters United States ex rel. Bunk v. Birkart Globistics and United States ex rel. Ammons v. Pasha Group, supported testifying expert on behalf of the United States.
• In the matter In re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litigation, supported testifying expert on behalf of defendant Nestlé USA.
• Served as consulting expert on behalf of a multinational corporation under investigation for alleged price-fixing by the US Department of Justice and European Commission.
• In the matter AMD v. Intel, supported the formulation of an economic theory of harm to competition from all-unit rebates. Provided support to assess empirical analyses of the competitive impact of Intel’s all-unit rebates presented by opposing experts.