United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019-05-10
15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: civil; dental-supply distributor sued the three dominant distributors under § 1 and state law, alleging they conspired to boycott an online sales portal, its partner dental associations and the plaintiff itself; district court dismissed for lack of antitrust standing; CA2 affirmed as to the indirect-boycott allegations and vacated and remanded as to the direct boycott of the plaintiff (the price-fixing claim was not pursued on appeal); result: mixed; claim:
Uncertainty
Element agreement: holding: the court says "Only antitrust standing is at issue here"; this block records only its rejection of the appellees' alternative argument that the complaint alleges no joint conduct to boycott IQ. It is a short pleading-stage answer, not a full analysis of concerted action, and a stricter reading would leave `agreement` not-reached.
Misfit
None recorded
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 11
Elements 7–11 of 11
| Case | Statute of limitations (4-year civil under 15 U.S.C. § 15b; 5-year criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 3282) | Law-of-the-case doctrine in consolidated/MDL antitrust proceedings | Criminal mens rea: knowing participation in the conspiracy or intent to restrain trade | Ancillary restraints doctrine (restraint subordinate and collateral to a legitimate productive integration) | Horizontal cartel / hub-and-spoke conspiracy operating through vertical or dual-distribution arrangements |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IQ Dental Supply, Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc. — 924 F.3d 57 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IQ Dental Supply, Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc. — 924 F.3d 57 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Concerted action ("contract, combination ... or conspiracy") between separate economic decisionmakers | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; party: IQ Dental Supply (small distributor selling through SourceOne's online portals, plaintiff) v. Henry Schein, Patterson and Benco (the three dominant dental-supply distributors); theory: the "direct boycott allegations": pressure on manufacturers to stop supplying IQ and disparagement of IQ to its customers; subject: party=IQ Dental Supply (small distributor selling through SourceOne's online portals, plaintiff) v. Henry Schein, Patterson and Benco (the three dominant dental-supply distributors); theory=the "direct boycott allegations": pressure on manufacturers to stop supplying IQ and disparagement of IQ to its customers | pressure on the plaintiff's own suppliers pleaded as one prong of a wider concerted boycott of an online portal | But sometime around April 2014 both DDS and Arnold stopped selling through SourceOne because the Defendants pressured dental-supply manufacturers to stop supplying DDS and Arnold due to their arrangement with SourceOne.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0057-01; Unicode character offsets [3376:3595] (end exclusive); SHA-256 da542b913aaaaecc4dee585005c4c043a7ad5068aafddc4154b5213f1e68de8f.IQ has alleged that the Defendants, as part of their elaborate and extensive scheme to force SourceOne and associated entities out of business, exerted pressure on some of IQ's suppliers to boycott IQ.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0057-01; Unicode character offsets [27439:27640] (end exclusive); SHA-256 da542b913aaaaecc4dee585005c4c043a7ad5068aafddc4154b5213f1e68de8f.This argument fails to recognize that the allegations of direct boycott are part of the Defendants' vast and multipronged attack on SourceOne's platforms, the SDAs, the distributors, and dental offices.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0057-01; Unicode character offsets [26717:26919] (end exclusive); SHA-256 da542b913aaaaecc4dee585005c4c043a7ad5068aafddc4154b5213f1e68de8f. |
| IQ Dental Supply, Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc. — 924 F.3d 57 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; party: IQ Dental Supply (small distributor selling through SourceOne's online portals, plaintiff) v. Henry Schein, Patterson and Benco (the three dominant dental-supply distributors); theory: group boycott engineered by the three distributors against SourceOne, the state dental associations and IQ (all boycott allegations together); subject: party=IQ Dental Supply (small distributor selling through SourceOne's online portals, plaintiff) v. Henry Schein, Patterson and Benco (the three dominant dental-supply distributors); theory=group boycott engineered by the three distributors against SourceOne, the state dental associations and IQ (all boycott allegations together) | replacement supplier that entered a market only because a boycott had driven out earlier suppliers, then lost sales to the same boycott | A plaintiff raising an antitrust claim must demonstrate antitrust injury to " 'ensure[ ] that the harm claimed by the plaintiff corresponds to the rationale for finding a violation of the antitrust laws in the first place.' " Gatt , 711 F.3d at 76 (quoting Atl. Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co ., 495 U.S. 328, 342, 110 S.Ct. 1884, 109 L.Ed.2d 333 (1990) ).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0057-01; Unicode character offsets [7488:7847] (end exclusive); SHA-256 da542b913aaaaecc4dee585005c4c043a7ad5068aafddc4154b5213f1e68de8f.Assuming that IQ is operating in a market affected by anticompetitive conduct, the question of actual injury becomes whether IQ is worse off than it would be if the market were free of anticompetitive forces.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0057-01; Unicode character offsets [13789:13997] (end exclusive); SHA-256 da542b913aaaaecc4dee585005c4c043a7ad5068aafddc4154b5213f1e68de8f.SourceOne's need for a distributor to supply its online portals opened the door for IQ.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0057-01; Unicode character offsets [3871:3958] (end exclusive); SHA-256 da542b913aaaaecc4dee585005c4c043a7ad5068aafddc4154b5213f1e68de8f.Instead, IQ alleges that the Defendants' actions have decreased the number of sales it has been able to make through SourceOne-affiliated websites.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0057-01; Unicode character offsets [12470:12617] (end exclusive); SHA-256 da542b913aaaaecc4dee585005c4c043a7ad5068aafddc4154b5213f1e68de8f.IQ has alleged that the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct affected the market, and that, after it entered the market, its sales through SourceOne suffered as a result.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0057-01; Unicode character offsets [13998:14167] (end exclusive); SHA-256 da542b913aaaaecc4dee585005c4c043a7ad5068aafddc4154b5213f1e68de8f.IQ has adequately pleaded an antitrust injury in accordance with our decision in Gatt.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0057-01; Unicode character offsets [8759:8845] (end exclusive); SHA-256 da542b913aaaaecc4dee585005c4c043a7ad5068aafddc4154b5213f1e68de8f. |
| IQ Dental Supply, Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc. — 924 F.3d 57 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 — not reached (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Unreasonable restraint of trade (Standard Oil Co. v. United States) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits party: IQ Dental Supply (small distributor selling through SourceOne's online portals, plaintiff) v. Henry Schein, Patterson and Benco (the three dominant dental-supply distributors); subject: party=IQ Dental Supply (small distributor selling through SourceOne's online portals, plaintiff) v. Henry Schein, Patterson and Benco (the three dominant dental-supply distributors) Only antitrust standing was before the court; at Gatt step one it says only that a group boycott is conduct of a kind the antitrust laws forbid. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| IQ Dental Supply, Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc. — 924 F.3d 57 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Antitrust standing / efficient enforcer test (Associated General Contractors; Illinois Brick) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; party: IQ Dental Supply (small distributor selling through SourceOne's online portals, plaintiff) v. Henry Schein, Patterson and Benco (the three dominant dental-supply distributors); theory: the "direct boycott allegations": pressure on manufacturers to stop supplying IQ and disparagement of IQ to its customers; subject: party=IQ Dental Supply (small distributor selling through SourceOne's online portals, plaintiff) v. Henry Schein, Patterson and Benco (the three dominant dental-supply distributors); theory=the "direct boycott allegations": pressure on manufacturers to stop supplying IQ and disparagement of IQ to its customers | competitor that was itself the target of the boycott: suppliers pressured to cut it off | A four-factor test is employed to determine whether an antitrust plaintiff is an efficient enforcer; thus we must evaluate: (1) "the directness or indirectness of the asserted injury," (2) "the existence of an identifiable class of persons whose self-interest would normally motivate them to vindicate the public interest in antitrust enforcement," (3) "the speculativeness of the alleged injury," and (4) "the difficulty of identifying damages and apportioning them among direct and indirect victims so as to avoid duplicative recoveries."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0057-01; Unicode character offsets [15297:15837] (end exclusive); SHA-256 da542b913aaaaecc4dee585005c4c043a7ad5068aafddc4154b5213f1e68de8f.IQ claims that the Defendants directly pressured manufacturers to stop selling their products to IQ, and that the Defendants sought to damage IQ's business reputation with its customers.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0057-01; Unicode character offsets [25028:25214] (end exclusive); SHA-256 da542b913aaaaecc4dee585005c4c043a7ad5068aafddc4154b5213f1e68de8f.The value of each lost opportunity might be calculated based on IQ's historical sales data without undue speculation.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0057-01; Unicode character offsets [26045:26162] (end exclusive); SHA-256 da542b913aaaaecc4dee585005c4c043a7ad5068aafddc4154b5213f1e68de8f.Unlike the indirect claims, any damages in connection with the Defendants' direct boycott of IQ could not also be claimed by Arnold and DDS.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0057-01; Unicode character offsets [26302:26442] (end exclusive); SHA-256 da542b913aaaaecc4dee585005c4c043a7ad5068aafddc4154b5213f1e68de8f.We find, with respect to these particular allegations, that IQ is an efficient enforcer and thus has antitrust standing to proceed with its direct boycott claim against the Defendants.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0057-01; Unicode character offsets [24744:24928] (end exclusive); SHA-256 da542b913aaaaecc4dee585005c4c043a7ad5068aafddc4154b5213f1e68de8f. |
| IQ Dental Supply, Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc. — 924 F.3d 57 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 — not · pleaded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Antitrust standing / efficient enforcer test (Associated General Contractors; Illinois Brick) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; party: IQ Dental Supply (small distributor selling through SourceOne's online portals, plaintiff) v. Henry Schein, Patterson and Benco (the three dominant dental-supply distributors); theory: the "indirect boycott allegations": boycotts of SourceOne-affiliated websites and of the state dental associations, which harmed IQ derivatively; subject: party=IQ Dental Supply (small distributor selling through SourceOne's online portals, plaintiff) v. Henry Schein, Patterson and Benco (the three dominant dental-supply distributors); theory=the "indirect boycott allegations": boycotts of SourceOne-affiliated websites and of the state dental associations, which harmed IQ derivatively | distributor harmed derivatively by a boycott aimed at the online portal it sold through; the portal itself has already sued | The first efficient-enforcer factor requires a direct injury: "Directness in the antitrust context means close in the chain of causation."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0057-01; Unicode character offsets [16698:16836] (end exclusive); SHA-256 da542b913aaaaecc4dee585005c4c043a7ad5068aafddc4154b5213f1e68de8f.By contrast, the Defendants here sought to put SourceOne-not IQ-out of business by undermining SourceOne's new and disruptive online sales model.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0057-01; Unicode character offsets [17973:18118] (end exclusive); SHA-256 da542b913aaaaecc4dee585005c4c043a7ad5068aafddc4154b5213f1e68de8f.And SourceOne has in fact sued the Defendants seeking to enforce the antitrust laws.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0057-01; Unicode character offsets [19445:19529] (end exclusive); SHA-256 da542b913aaaaecc4dee585005c4c043a7ad5068aafddc4154b5213f1e68de8f.This is IQ's most promising claim that it is a properly motivated plaintiff: while SourceOne and the SDAs earn a commission on the sales, neither earns a profit.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0057-01; Unicode character offsets [19686:19847] (end exclusive); SHA-256 da542b913aaaaecc4dee585005c4c043a7ad5068aafddc4154b5213f1e68de8f.The damages to which IQ lays claim-lost profits from sales it would have made through SourceOne-affiliated websites absent the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct-are exactly the same damages SourceOne's initial suppliers, DDS and Arnold, could have claimed.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0057-01; Unicode character offsets [22625:22883] (end exclusive); SHA-256 da542b913aaaaecc4dee585005c4c043a7ad5068aafddc4154b5213f1e68de8f.In sum, we agree with the district court that because IQ is not positioned to efficiently enforce the claims that the Defendants harmed it by conspiring to boycott SourceOne-affiliated websites and the SDAs, IQ does not have antitrust standing to bring these claims.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_924.jsonl#/f3d/924/0057-01; Unicode character offsets [24137:24403] (end exclusive); SHA-256 da542b913aaaaecc4dee585005c4c043a7ad5068aafddc4154b5213f1e68de8f. |