A US District Court finds that the alleged facts were insufficient to allege a plausible monopoly power maintenance claim in respect of the market for automotive refrigerant recycling and recovery machines (SPX / Mastercool)

Antitrust Counterclaim in Patent Infringement Action Lacks Plausible Allegations of Competitive Injury* Plaintiff SPX Corporation ("SPX") brought a patent infringement action against Master Cool U.S.A. ("Master Cool"). Master Cool answered and counterclaimed. In its counterclaim, it alleged that SPX had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by its utilization of short term exclusive dealing incentive contracts with distributors, which allegedly foreclosed competitive opportunities to Master Cool, SPX’s direct competitor. Both SPX and Master Cool sell automotive refrigerant recycling and recovery machines ("ARRR equipment") through distributors. The distributors market the ARRR machines and related services to consumers through catalogs. Through a series of one year distributor

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • Sheppard Mullin (Los Angeles)

Quotation

Jr. Don T. Hibner, A US District Court finds that the alleged facts were insufficient to allege a plausible monopoly power maintenance claim in respect of the market for automotive refrigerant recycling and recovery machines (SPX / Mastercool), 17 August 2011, e-Competitions Bulletin US Private Enforcement, Art. N° 66587

Visites 36

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues