Allegation that Two Products Were Historically Sold Separately Supports Tying Coercion Claim

The court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Sherman § 1 tying claim because plaintiff sufficiently pled that defendant’s catheter tip location system and defendant’s peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) were separate products. “According to [defendant], the Complaint ‘alleges next to nothing’ concerning the character of the demand for PICCs and tip location systems. [Defendant] characterizes the allegation that Cleveland Clinic requested to purchase the stylets separately as an ‘isolated example of one hospital out of thousands in this country,’ and faults [plaintiff] for not including ‘any facts to support that customers in general actually wish to purchase PICCs and tip location systems separately.’ . . . [Defendant], however, overlooks a number of allegations that, if assumed to be true and read together with the rest of the Complaint, make it plausible that PICCs and tip location systems are separate products. The Complaint describes the distinct characteristics of the market for PICCs and the market for tip location systems. Additionally, [plaintiff] alleges that Cleveland Clinic and other institutions have asked to purchase [defendant’s] stylets separately from its PICCs, and that customers can purchase its competitors’ tip location systems single sterile. . . . [T]he Court reads the Complaint as indicating that PICCs were historically sold on a standalone basis. These allegations plausibly show that there is separate consumer demand for PICCs and tip location systems.”

AngioDynamics, Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al, 1-17-cv-00598 (NYND 2018-08-06, Order) (Brenda K. Sannes)

2018-08-08T12:01:02+00:00August 8th, 2018|Antitrust, Docket Report|