Distribution, Competition, and Antitrust / Intellectual Property (IP) Law

Sixth Circuit Applies Cost Screen to Tying by Differential Pricing

English: Eastman Kodak model B

Eastman Kodak model B (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In Collins Inkjet Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., No. 14-3306 (6th Cir. March 16, 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that differential pricing – charging more for one product when the customer does not also purchase a second product – can constitute an unlawful tying arrangement only when the price differential in effect discounts the second product below the seller’s cost.

Eastman Kodak sells refurbished printer components for industrial printers. It also sells ink. Its competitor, Collins, competes for the sale of ink. In 2013, Kodak announced a new pricing policy – it discounted print heads for customers that also buy Kodak ink. Collins sought, and obtained in the district court, a preliminary injunction against the pricing policy.

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the grant of the preliminary injunction, but clarified the test for what it termed “non-explicit tying via differential pricing.” In the Court’s view, differential pricing becomes equivalent to an unlawful tying arrangement when the price discount, as applied to the original price of the second (or “tied”) product, in effect lowers the price of the tied product below the seller’s cost. “[D]ifferential pricing . . . is unlawful only if it might [force] a more efficient competitor out of business.” The below-cost test is required because

differential pricing, unlike other forms of indirect coercion, can be employed legitimately without illegal anticompetitive influence from the defendant’s control over the tying product market . . . . [I]f the defendant merely offers a discount on the tying good to buyers who also purchase the tied good, then buyers are only ‘forced’ to buy the tied good elsewhere at a price low enough to offset the forgone discount for the tying product. The defendant uses its market power over the tying good to shift the discount from the tied good to the tying good, but this in itself does not ‘force’ buyers to purchase the tied product any more than a discount on the tied product would.

In applying a below-cost screen, the Sixth Circuit followed the Ninth Circuit’s approach to bundled discounts in Cascade Health Solutions v. PeaceHealth, 515 F.3d 883, 906 (9th Cir. 2008), and criticized the Third Circuit’s approach in LePage’s, Inc. v. 3M, 324 F.3d 141, 154-57 (3d Cir. 2003 (en banc).

Application of a cost screen has the obvious advantage of providing a relatively bright line test that firms can apply themselves to avoid potential violations in the first instance.

Return of Robinson-Patman Act and Resale Price Maintenance Litigation?

A quick note on a few recent developments suggesting that RP and RPM litigation is not yet dead. First, on February 2, 2015, a court refused to dismiss claims against Clorox arising from its refusal to sell a small regional grocery chain the same … [Continue reading]

San Jose Strikes Out in Baseball Antitrust Challenge

“Baseball? It’s just a game — as simple as a ball and a bat. Yet, as complex as the American spirit it symbolizes. It’s a sport, business — and sometimes even religion.” Ernie Harwell, "The Game for All America," 1955. In City of San Jose v. … [Continue reading]

Can the State Seek Restitution After a Class Action Settlement?

In The People of the State of California v. IntelliGender, LLC, 771 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. Nov. 7, 2014) (Wardlaw, J.), the Ninth Circuit said the answer is “no.”  A federal court had approved a class action settlement involving false advertising and … [Continue reading]

Motorola’s FTAIA Quest Ends With a Whimper in the Seventh Circuit

On November 26, 2014, the Seventh Circuit (Posner, J.) issued its order upon rehearing of Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp. (Case No. 14-8003). Motorola still effectively lost the appeal, but the Court’s more circumspect reasoning means … [Continue reading]

Three Billy Goats Gruff

(You know . . .  the fairy tale about trolls.) This summer, PwC published its 2014 Patent Litigation Study.  The tagline of the study is "[a]s case volume leaps, damages continue general decline." Some of they key findings -- which are quite … [Continue reading]

Is the NCAA a Cartel?

The usually good Planet Money program has an excellent recent podcast setting forth the arguments for and against the NCAA [National Collegiate Athletic Association] being an unlawful cartel. … [Continue reading]

Could Amazon Possibly Be a Monopolist? (Updated) (Again)

Franklin Foer, at the New Republic, argues that the answer is yes.  The alleged "crime": predatory pricing -- if not express, than at least in spirit. In "There's one huge problem with calls for anti-trust action against Amazon" at vox.com, … [Continue reading]

Can you ever successfully Daubert an antitrust economist?

It's really a very difficult thing to do -- and query whether it's worth the effort.  See, e.g., The Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136437 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2014) (Gonzalez Rogers, J.) (denying Daubert motions all … [Continue reading]

Ninth Circuit Holds State Action Immunity Doctrine Bars Claims Against Convention Center

In United National Maintenance, Inc. v. San Diego Convention Center, Inc., No. 12-56809 (9th Cir. May 14, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the San Diego Convention center enjoyed state-action immunity from … [Continue reading]

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE
%d bloggers like this: