June 26, 2019

Tenth Circuit: Significant Evidence of Monopolization Precluded Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Lenox Maclaren Surgical Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc. on Tuesday, August 5, 2014.

Lenox Maclaren Surgical Corp. manufactures bone mills, a type of instrument used in spinal fusion surgery. In 2000, Lenox began to sell bone mills to a Medtronic entity, but that Medtronic entity initiated a recall of Lenox’s products and began selling bone mills produced by a different Medtronic entity. Lenox sued the Medtronic entities for monopolization and attempted monopolization from 2007 through 2010. The district court granted summary judgment to Medtronic, and Lenox appealed on five issues: (1) foreclosure of issues due to res judicata; (2) definition of the product market; (3) Medtronic’s monopoly power; (4) Medtronic’s acquisition of monopoly power through exclusionary practices; and (5) harm to competition from Medtronic’s monopoly powers.

The Tenth Circuit first addressed Medtronic’s claim that Lenox’s suit was barred by the doctrine of res judicata, since Lenox could have raised these issues when the parties engaged in arbitration prior to the district court’s grant of summary judgment. In that binding arbitration, a panel found that Medtronic had insufficient proof to justify its recall of the Lenox bone mills and the company had taken action to clear Lenox from the market. In the action before the district court, Medtronic moved for dismissal based on res judicata, but the district court denied the motion. Medtronic did not raise the res judicata claim in its motion for summary judgment. The Tenth Circuit ruled that Lenox had no need to confront an argument not raised in the motion and declined to address the issue.

Turning to the monopolization issue, the Tenth Circuit disagreed with the district court’s grant of summary judgment, ruling that there were genuine issues of disputed fact which precluded summary judgment. In order to prevail on the monopolization claim, Lenox had to prove (1) monopoly power in the relevant market, (2) willful acquisition of this power through exclusionary conduct, and (3) harm to competition. The district court ruled that Lenox had not created a triable issue of fact on the relevant product market, monopoly power, willful acquisition, or harm, but the Tenth Circuit disagreed.

The Tenth Circuit first identified the relevant product market as the market for other bone mills, despite the fact that hand tools can be used to mill bone, because Lenox presented expert testimony regarding surgeons’ preference for bone mills, a substantial price difference exists between bone mills and hand tools, and Medtronic’s market literature identifies its competition as other bone mills. Because of potential factual disputes on this issue, summary judgment is precluded.

Next, the Tenth Circuit addressed Medtronic’s monopoly power in the bone mill market and determined that Lenox showed sufficient evidence of market share and barriers to entrance to infer that Medtronic had monopoly power in the market. Medtronic’s own literature showed that it had a majority share of the bone mill market during the years in question, with its lowest market share at 65% and its highest at 97-98%. Lenox’s expert testified as to barriers to market entrance. The evidence on market share and barriers created reasonable disputes of material fact and precluded summary judgment.

The Tenth Circuit then turned to the issue of Medtronic’s anticompetitive conduct and found that Lenox presented significant evidence from which a fact-finder could infer anticompetitive conduct. Applying the more stringent 6-factor disparagement test, the Tenth Circuit found that Lenox had alleged facts sufficient to infer anticompetitive conduct, including Medtronic’s reasonless recall of Lenox’s products and Medtronic’s statements to hospitals about the recalls, thus inducing consumers to avoid the Lenox product and causing harm to Lenox.

The Tenth Circuit ruled that Lenox presented significant evidence to support a finding on each element of its claim for actual monopolization, and this evidence precluded summary judgment to Medtronic. The district court’s judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for additional proceedings.

Tenth Circuit: Collateral Order Doctrine Does Not Apply to Denial of State Action Immunity

The Tenth Circuit published its opinion in Auraria Student Housing at the Regency, LLC v. Campus Village Apartments, LLC on Friday, January 4, 2013.

Defendant-Appellant Campus Village Apartments, LLC (“Campus Village”) appealed the denial of its motion to dismiss the complaint of Plaintiff-Appellee Auraria Student Housing at the Regency, LLC (“Regency”). Regency alleged Campus Village conspired with the University of Colorado (CU), Denver to monopolize the provision of student housing in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Most full-time CU students are required to live in the Campus Village Apartments for their first two semesters. Campus Village moved to dismiss on the basis that state action Parker immunity applied to it as a private party. The district court disagreed.

Regency moved to dismiss Campus Village’s appeal, arguing the Tenth Circuit lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the district court’s denial of Campus Village’s motion to dismiss was not a final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Campus Village argued that the court had jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine set forth in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. The collateral order doctrine allows interlocutory review in limited cases. The Tenth Circuit held that “[e]xtending the collateral order doctrine to private parties contesting an order denying Parker immunity does not serve a substantial public interest and would constitute precisely the type of expansion the doctrine discourages.” It therefore dismissed the appeal.