§Why CasetextPricing

Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories

Memorandum in Opposition to Abbott's Supplemental Brief in Support of Its Omnibus Motion to Dismiss

8 Cited authorities

  1. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc.

    504 U.S. 451 (1992)   Cited 2,285 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "it is clearly reasonable to infer that [the defendant] has market power to raise prices and drive out competition in the aftermarkets" for service and parts despite an undisputed lack of market power in the initial product

  2. Verizon Comm. v. Law Offices of Trinko

    540 U.S. 398 (2004)   Cited 506 times   54 Legal Analyses
    Holding even a monopolist has no duty to cooperate with rivals

  3. Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp.

    472 U.S. 585 (1985)   Cited 607 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Holding that predatory conduct to attain or preserve a monopoly is a prerequisite to a finding of monopolization or attempted monopolization

  4. 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

  5. Image Tech. Services, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak

    125 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 1997)   Cited 214 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a litigant's summary judgment motion does not satisfy the requirement for a motion for JMOL at the close of the evidence

  6. SmithKline Corp. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    575 F.2d 1056 (3d Cir. 1978)   Cited 123 times
    Finding control of "100% to 89.8%" of the relevant market "is generally considered monopolistic"

  7. Maple Flooring Assn. v. U.S.

    268 U.S. 563 (1925)   Cited 163 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Maple Flooring Mfrs. Assn. v. United States, 268 U.S. 563, and Cement Mfrs. Protective Assn. v. United States, 268 U.S. 588, this Court merely approved the collection and wide-spread dissemination of prices in past transactions, where competitors "were left free to base individual initiative on full information of the essential elements of their business."

  8. Section 1396r-8 - Payment for covered outpatient drugs

    42 U.S.C. § 1396r-8   Cited 221 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Listing as approved “compendia” the American Hospital Formulary Service Drug Information, the United States Pharmacopeia–Drug Information (or its successor publications), and the DRUGDEX Information System