Tag Archives: sherman act

The Sixth Circuit Finds That Section One Of The Sherman Act Applies To An Integrated Hospital System

In The Medical Center at Elizabeth Place, LLC v. Atrium Health System, the Sixth Circuit reversed a well-known district court decision that a joint venture between separately owned hospitals was incapable of conspiring under Section One of the Sherman Act.  The Court found that a group of hospitals acting under a Joint Operating Agreement (JOA) … Continue Reading

Sixth Circuit Explains Minimal Cost-Measurement Standards in Antitrust Case

Last week, the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion in a lengthy and complex antitrust case about the prices of replacement truck hoods in the American auto parts industry. In Superior Production Partnership v. Gordon Auto Body Parts (“PBSI v. Gordon”), the court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendant Gordon based largely on several … Continue Reading

“Tying” Products Via Discount Only “Unlawful” When Second Product Sells Below Cost

In Collins Inkjet Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., the Sixth Circuit recently held that differential pricing—charging more for a product when the customer fails to buy a second “tied” product—constitutes unlawful tying only when the second product is effectively being sold for below-cost.  In adopting this “discount attribution” standard, the court sided with the Ninth … Continue Reading

Offering Cheaper Service For Your Own Product Than For A Competitor’s? Watch Out For Antitrust Issues!

The Sixth Circuit will soon be clarifying its standard for so-called “non-explicit” unlawful tying in ­­­­­ Collins Inkjet Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., Case No. 14-3306, currently awaiting submission to a panel.  Kodak and Collins both make Versamark products, including ink and printer parts, but only Kodak refurbishes printheads.  After Collins terminated its relationship as … Continue Reading

Sixth Circuit Revives Competing Energy Shot Trademark Infringement and False Advertising Claims

The Sixth Circuit yesterday breathed new life into competing allegations of trademark infringement and false advertising related to the “5-hour ENERGY” energy shot and the “6 Hour POWER” energy shot.  The district court had granted summary judgment dismissing the trademark infringement claim, concluding that there was no genuine issue as to the  likelihood of confusion between the … Continue Reading