United States: Reversal Of $340 Million Jury Award Shines Light On Evidentiary Requirements To Establish Anticompetitive Conduct

In December 2016, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a $340 million jury award in an antitrust, attempted monopolization case, ruling the verdict was not legally supported by the jury's factual findings.1 In reaching this ruling, the Fifth Circuit separately analyzed the factual predicates underpinning the jury's verdict and approached, with healthy skepticism, plaintiff's evidence of anticompetitive conduct premised on unfair or tortious conduct. While the Fifth Circuit, given the case facts, seemingly reached the right result,2 companies should remember:

Ordinary business torts or unfair behavior can serve as the basis for treble damages antitrust liability, and

Antitrust liability can be based on aggregated tortious or other conduct, even when the individual prongs of that conduct do not, separately, violate the antitrust laws.

In the Fifth Circuit litigation, Retractable Technologies, Inc. ("RTI"), alleged, among other claims, Becton Dickinson & Co. ("BD") attempted to monopolize the market for safety syringes in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. On appeal, as it pertained to the attempt claim, the Fifth Circuit focused on whether RTI had adequately shown that BD had engaged in anticompetitive conduct.3 To prove anticompetitive conduct at trial, RTI presented four categories of facts, of which the jury found three to be sufficient to find liability: (1) BD's infringement of certain RTI syringe patents,4 (2) BD's persistent false advertising, and (3) BD's practices that allegedly "tainted the market" so as to persuade customers to deal with BD.

In assessing the sufficiency of this evidence, the Fifth Circuit "separately analyzed" each factual category in "light of settled principles of antitrust law."5 The decision, however, does not clearly identify the settled principles mandating separate analysis, and, relatedly, leaves unresolved RTI's contention that unlawful conduct can be premised on aggregated "unfair competitive practices."6 At most, the Fifth Circuit, citing its 1980 ruling in Page Airways and the Supreme Court's 1993 decision in Brooke Group, states two related propositions: (1) it is highly unusual for business torts to be "so egregious as to constitute actionable" conduct under the antitrust laws, and (2) those same antitrust laws do not "purport to afford remedies for all torts committed by or against persons engaged in interstate commerce."7

Both propositions ring true and render unusual the circumstance where tortious or unfair conduct will fuel an antitrust, Sherman Act claim. Yet, such cases can be, and successfully have been, litigated by plaintiffs.8 For instance, in Conwood, the Sixth Circuit affirmed a $1 billion award to plaintiff based on a jury finding that the defendant had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act through a series of tortious acts that adversely affected competition in the moist snuff market.9 In finding the defendant's conduct susceptible to claims of antitrust illegality, the Sixth Circuit stated: "merely because a particular practice might be actionable under tort law does not preclude an action under the antitrust laws as well."10

In essence, when conduct – regardless of the "form of the combination or the particular means used" – unreasonably restrains trade or creates or maintains a monopoly, liability risks run high.11 Relatedly, it is "not of importance whether the means used to accomplish the unlawful objective are in themselves lawful or unlawful."12 As the Supreme Court instructed in American Tobacco:

Acts done to give effect to [an unlawful undertaking such as a] conspiracy may be in themselves wholly innocent acts. Yet, if they are part of the sum of the acts which are relied upon to effectuate the conspiracy which the statute forbids, they come within its prohibition.13

Not surprisingly then, courts have announced that anticompetitive conduct can "come in too many different forms, and is too dependent on context, for any court or commentator ever to have enumerated all the varieties,"14 and that the "means of illicit exclusion, like the means of legitimate competition, are myriad."15 By way of example, in Byars, the Sixth Circuit stated a Section 2 claim alleging a periodical distributor had unlawfully excluded a smaller rival from the market could be supported by facts showing, among other things, that the distributor removed the rival's periodicals from retailers' sales racks, covered up the rival's periodicals on racks to conceal them from consumers, disparaged the rival's financial status, and sought to intimidate customers into dealing with the distributor rather than the rival.16

Moreover, in evaluating challenged behavior, the Supreme Court and lesser federal courts have admonished parties to assess the anticompetitive effects of conduct by examining the conduct as a whole, rather than through the conduct's individual prongs. It has long been held that the "character and effect of a conspiracy are not to be judged by dismembering it and viewing its separate parts, but only by looking at it as a whole."17 This proposition applies equally to anticompetitive monopolistic behavior: "courts must look to the monopolist's conduct taken as a whole rather than considering each aspect in isolation."18 Oddly, the Fifth Circuit in RTI did not address or distinguish this principle of holistic analysis, which inaction is all the stranger since, in Page Airways, the Fifth Circuit found liability only after studying the defendant's various improper acts "taken together":

Probably no one of the instances of improper conduct, standing alone, would lead to section 2 [monopolization] liability. Taken together, however, they show a pattern of exclusionary behavior sufficient to support the jury's verdict."19

Thus companies, in developing and implementing business strategy, should be cautious in the antitrust guidance they extract from RTI. Reflecting on RTI in light of Supreme Court and other federal decisions, companies should keep in mind the following when defining business strategy:

  1. If acting unilaterally, does the company arguably possess monopoly power?20 Monopolists often operate with a target on their back, which can lead to potential, nascent, or frustrated competitors, rightly or wrongly, pursuing legal action against the monopolist. And like BD, the defendant in RTI, those having such power or dangerously close to possessing it must exercise that power in a disciplined fashion. A "monopolist is not free to take certain actions that a company in a competitive (or even oligopolistic) market may take."21
  2. When assessing the competitive effects of the prongs of a business strategy, a company should consider those prongs collectively, rather than individually.
  3. Likewise, in assessing prongs, a company should look beyond whether a prong, standing alone, is lawful. In the antitrust context that prong, in conjunction with others, still can trigger antitrust issues. This is so even if all of the prongs, individually, involve lawful acts.
  4. The reach of the Sherman Act is long and can extend to a host of activities not ordinarily associated with antitrust wrongdoing.

These takeaways open additional windows of analysis that companies should peer through when gauging the antitrust implications of their business behavior. To accurately see what those open windows reveal, antitrust counsel can be of substantial value.


1. Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21556, at *8 (5th Cir. Dec. 2, 2016) ("RTI"). Also found at 842 F.3d 883 (5th Cir. 2016).

2. Although this article studies whether it is appropriate to isolate factual allegations when reviewing them to see if they constitute anticompetitive conduct, it does not appear the evidence in RTI, whether reviewed individually or collectively, would justify a finding that the defendant engaged in anticompetitive conduct.

3. As the Fifth Circuit noted, an attempt to monopolize claim has three elements: (1) anticompetitive or predatory conduct, (2) specific intent to monopolize, and (3) a dangerous probability of success. RTI, at *9. In the Section 2 context, anticompetitive conduct includes acts that "tend to exclude or restrict competition" in an "unnecessarily restrictive way." Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 475 U.S. 585, 605 (1985).

4. The Fifth Circuit noted that patent infringement traditionally is not regarded as anticompetitive conduct. RTI, at *13-15. See also Eatoni Ergonomics, Inc. v. Research in Motion Corp., 826 F. Supp. 2d 705, 708-09 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). Judicial treatment of patent infringement should not be confused, however, with "sham litigation" pursued under the pretext of infringement. In limited circumstances, such litigation can constitute anticompetitive conduct. See, e.g., Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 508 U.S. 49 (1993) (defining "sham litigation" but finding copyright infringement lawsuit did not constitute a sham).

5. RTI, at *10.

6. RTI, at *10-13.

7. RTI, at *12-13 (citing Brooke Grp. Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209 (1993) and Associated Radio Service Co. v. Page Airways, Inc., 624 F.2d 1342 (5th Cir. 1980)).

8. See Associated General Contractors v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 547 (1983) (Marshall, J., dissenting) ("antitrust violations are essentially 'tortious acts'") (citation omitted).

9. Conwood Co., L.P. v. U.S. Tobacco Co., 290 F.3d 768, 783-84 (6th Cir. 2002) (defendant's anticompetitive conduct, among other acts, included misusing "position as a [product] category manager" to unfairly promote defendant's product over plaintiff's and training personnel to use "ruses" so that they could destroy plaintiff's in-store product placement tools).

10. Id. at 783-784.

11. Hanover Shoe v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 392 U.S. 481, 497 n.12 (1968) (quoting American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U.S. 781, 809 (1946)).

12. Id.

13. American Tobacco, 328 U.S. at 809.

14. Caribbean Broad Sys., Ltd. v. Cable & Wireless PLC, 148 F.3d 1080, 1087 (D.C. Cir. 1998).

15. ZF Meritor, LLC v. Eaton Corp., 696 F.3d 254, 278 (3d Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34, 58 (D.C. Cir. 2001)). See, e.g., Page Airways, at 1354 ("some unfair business practices can be exclusionary."); N.M. Oncology & Hematology Consultants, Ltd. v. Presbyterian Healthcare Servs., 54 F. Supp. 3d 1189, 1222 (D. N.M. 2014) ("Predatory conduct comes in too many forms to enumerate.").

16. Byars v. Bluff City News Co., 609 F.2d 843, 854 n.30 (6th Cir. 1979). See also Page Airways, at 1354-55 (evidence of unlawful market exclusion included proof of bribes used to assert improper influence on customers of plaintiff and defendant, the filing of sham suits designed to adversely impact finances of plaintiff, and gross impropriety in dealing with plaintiff's employees, including extraction of plaintiff's sensitive business data).

17. United States v. Patten, 226 U.S. 525, 544 (1913). See also Cont'l Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., 370 U.S. 690, 699 (1962). This is not to say that for analytical purposes a court cannot review each alleged improper act individually to determine if it, in combination with other acts, has had anticompetitive effect. Such analysis can eliminate from consideration acts "utterly lacking" in relevance to the claim asserted. See Northeastern Tel. Co. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 651 F.2d 76, 95 n.28 (2d Cir. 1981); see also California Computer Products, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp., 613 F.2d 727, 746 (9th Cir. 1979).

18. LePage's Inc. v. 3M, 324 F.3d 141, 162 (3d Cir. 2003); see also City of Anaheim v. Southern California Edison Co., 955 F.2d 1373, 1378 (9th Cir. 1992) (it is improper "to focus on specific individual acts of an accused monopolist while refusing to consider their overall combined effect.").

19. Page Airways, at 1356. Further, the Fifth Circuit stated it had not held that torts had been committed. Instead it simply identified "sufficient evidence for the jury to have found exclusionary conduct." Id. at 1356 n.23.

20. See RTI, at *9 (RTI contended BD possessed a dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power, which was an element of RTI's attempted monopolization claim and presumed for purposes of appeal).

21. LePage's, 324 F.3d at 151-52. Separately, a company if acting collaboratively with others, whether horizontally (i.e., with competitors) or vertically (i.e., with those at other levels in the market), should assess whether the collaboration can be deemed anticompetitive. Such an analysis may need to consider various antitrust statutes and approaches to test the legality of conduct (per se treatment v. rule of reason), all of which is beyond the scope of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions