I'm not so sure. Instead of RICO, the alleged misconduct here is collusion between competitors. So fr'instance, if at an RIAA meeting record company 1 talks to record company 2 and they decide that it is no longer profitable to make 45rpm records and they say "if you stop making them I will stop making them" that would probably be illegal collusion under the antitrust laws.

Likewise, in the absence of the noerr pennington doctrine, it would be illegal for those record companies to get together and both decide to sue somebody. The Noerr Pennington doctrine lets them collude for the purposes of pursuing their lawsuit without antitrust liability.

So Noerr Pennington makes an exception to the antitrust laws for suing people. The exception to that exception is in the case of sham litigation. I think there is a chance to land this case in that sham litigation exception because if you look at the cases (and probably at RIAA documents) the purpose of the cases is not necessarily to win, but to scare people, which I would argue is irrespective of the merits of the individual cases.

I also think there is some sort of a case here to say that the RIAA members may be able to collude to sue people for violation of copyrights - the antitrust issue is that they are using their market power in the production of copyrighted material and using that to establish a dominant position in the distribution of those materials. So the way I look at it, there are two markets here, one for owning content, and one for distributing it. The RIAA is leveraging their power in the ownership market to eliminate new & more efficient forms of distribution. I haven't thought this one all the way through yet, though.