Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc.
E666877
Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc. is a 1988 U.S. Supreme Court antitrust case that limited immunity for efforts to influence private standard-setting bodies, refining the scope of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc. canonical | 1 |
| Allied Tube & Conduit Corporation v. Indian Head, Incorporated | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T7476528 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc. Context triple: [Noerr-Pennington doctrine, clarifiedInCase, Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc.]
-
A.
Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus
Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus is a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited state interference with private contracts by striking down a Minnesota pension law as violating the Constitution’s Contract Clause.
-
B.
Sibbach v. Wilson & Co.
Sibbach v. Wilson & Co. is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the validity of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under the Rules Enabling Act and helped define the scope of federal procedural rulemaking.
-
C.
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. is a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision that clarified the standards for proving age discrimination under the ADEA, particularly the role of pretext and circumstantial evidence in employment discrimination cases.
-
D.
Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.
Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. is a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited the authority of non-Article III bankruptcy courts and reshaped the constitutional framework for federal bankruptcy adjudication.
-
E.
Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting
Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting is a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld an Arizona law allowing the state to revoke business licenses of employers who knowingly hire unauthorized immigrants, ruling that it was not preempted by federal immigration law.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc. Target entity description: Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc. is a 1988 U.S. Supreme Court antitrust case that limited immunity for efforts to influence private standard-setting bodies, refining the scope of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.
-
A.
Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus
Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus is a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited state interference with private contracts by striking down a Minnesota pension law as violating the Constitution’s Contract Clause.
-
B.
Sibbach v. Wilson & Co.
Sibbach v. Wilson & Co. is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the validity of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under the Rules Enabling Act and helped define the scope of federal procedural rulemaking.
-
C.
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. is a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision that clarified the standards for proving age discrimination under the ADEA, particularly the role of pretext and circumstantial evidence in employment discrimination cases.
-
D.
Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.
Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. is a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited the authority of non-Article III bankruptcy courts and reshaped the constitutional framework for federal bankruptcy adjudication.
-
E.
Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting
Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting is a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld an Arizona law allowing the state to revoke business licenses of employers who knowingly hire unauthorized immigrants, ruling that it was not preempted by federal immigration law.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (32)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
U.S. Supreme Court case
ⓘ
antitrust case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
competition law
ⓘ
trade regulation ⓘ |
| citation |
100 L. Ed. 2d 497
ⓘ
108 S. Ct. 1931 ⓘ 486 U.S. 492 ⓘ |
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1988 ⓘ |
| doctrineRefined | Noerr-Pennington doctrine ⓘ |
| fullName | Allied Tube & Conduit Corporation v. Indian Head, Incorporated ⓘ |
| holding |
Efforts to influence a private standard-setting body are not automatically immune from antitrust liability under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine
ⓘ
Manipulation of a private association’s standard-setting process for anticompetitive purposes can violate the Sherman Act ⓘ Noerr-Pennington immunity is limited to genuine efforts to influence governmental action ⓘ
linked to:
Noerr-Pennington doctrine
|
| impact |
clarified antitrust scrutiny of private associations’ standard-setting processes
ⓘ
narrowed the scope of Noerr-Pennington immunity ⓘ |
| issue |
Whether Noerr-Pennington immunity applies to efforts to influence a private standard-setting association
ⓘ
Whether conduct to exclude a rival’s product from a private code can constitute an antitrust violation ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | federal ⓘ |
| legalSubject |
Noerr-Pennington doctrine
ⓘ
antitrust law ⓘ immunity for petitioning activity ⓘ private standard-setting organizations ⓘ |
| petitioner | Allied Tube & Conduit Corporation ⓘ |
| precedentFor |
distinction between governmental and private petitioning for Noerr-Pennington purposes
ⓘ
limits on antitrust immunity for private standard-setting activities ⓘ |
| relatedStatute | Sherman Antitrust Act ⓘ |
| respondent | Indian Head, Inc. ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
exclusion of competing products from private codes
ⓘ
standard-setting in the electrical conduit industry ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1988 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc. Description of subject: Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc. is a 1988 U.S. Supreme Court antitrust case that limited immunity for efforts to influence private standard-setting bodies, refining the scope of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.
Referenced by (2)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc.
→
fullName
→
Allied Tube & Conduit Corporation v. Indian Head, Incorporated
ⓘ
linked to: Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head, Inc.