11 Cited authorities

Brooks v. Ross
578 F.3d 574 (7th Cir. 2009) Cited 3,249 times
Holding that a claim is plausible if the facts alleged raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will yield evidence supporting the allegations
Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc.
547 U.S. 28 (2006) Cited 231 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that separate markets existed for software and hardware even when they were always bundled together
West Penn Allegheny Health System, Inc. v. UPMC
627 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010) Cited 547 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "plausibility" standard does not become a "probability" standard in complex cases
Cascade Health v. Peacehealth
515 F.3d 883 (9th Cir. 2007) Cited 171 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in the normal case, above-cost pricing will not be considered exclusionary conduct
Reazin v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas
899 F.2d 951 (10th Cir. 1990) Cited 197 times
Holding that evidence of monopoly power was sufficient when the defendant had a market share between 47% and 62%
Rick-Mik v. Equilon
532 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 107 times
Holding that conclusory allegation that gasoline station franchisor's intellectual property rights conferred market power was insufficient to allege market power in the relevant tying product market, gasoline franchises, as required to state a claim for antitrust violation based on the franchisor's alleged conditioning franchise purchase on the purchase of credit-card processing services
Stop Shop v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of R.I
373 F.3d 57 (1st Cir. 2004) Cited 82 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding that closed networks can allow payers to reduce customer premiums because providers will exchange better rates for guaranteed volume
Sterling Merchandising, Inc. v. Nestle, S.A
656 F.3d 112 (1st Cir. 2011) Cited 38 times
Holding that exclusive agreements were not proven to have impaired competition where, inter alia, distributors historically competed for the agreements with retailers, plaintiff succeeded in winning over one of defendant's largest customers, other avenues of distribution remained available, and new competitors entered the market
United States v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan
809 F. Supp. 2d 665 (E.D. Mich. 2011) Cited 11 times 4 Legal Analyses
In United States v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 809 F.Supp.2d 665 (E.D.Mich.2011), the government brought antitrust claims against the Blue Cross of Michigan entity related to Blue Cross' use of “most favored nation” clauses in its agreements with hospitals.
Rome Ambulatory Surgical Center, LLC v. Rome Memorial Hospital, Inc.
349 F. Supp. 2d 389 (N.D.N.Y. 2004) Cited 13 times 1 Legal Analyses
Recognizing loss of consumer choice as a significant injury to competition

Marion HealthCare, LLC v. Southern Illinois Healthcare et al

11 Cited authorities

Holding that a claim is plausible if the facts alleged raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will yield evidence supporting the allegations

Holding that separate markets existed for software and hardware even when they were always bundled together

Holding that the "plausibility" standard does not become a "probability" standard in complex cases

Holding that, in the normal case, above-cost pricing will not be considered exclusionary conduct

Holding that evidence of monopoly power was sufficient when the defendant had a market share between 47% and 62%

Finding that closed networks can allow payers to reduce customer premiums because providers will exchange better rates for guaranteed volume

In United States v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 809 F.Supp.2d 665 (E.D.Mich.2011), the government brought antitrust claims against the Blue Cross of Michigan entity related to Blue Cross' use of “most favored nation” clauses in its agreements with hospitals.

Recognizing loss of consumer choice as a significant injury to competition