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

Northern District of California Raises the Bar on Exclusive Dealing Claims

In PNY Technologies, Inc. v. SanDisk Corp., Case No. C-11-04689 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2014) (Orrick, J.), the court dismissed PNY’s exclusive dealing and attempted monopolization claims. I previously covered the case here.

The case is significant because it found – on a motion to dismiss – that allegations of foreclosure from a substantial percentage of retail outlets were insufficient as a matter of law. The court took judicial notice of SanDisk’s contracts with retailers under the “incorporation by reference” doctrine, and proceeded to conclude that because they were terminable on short notice, they did not plausibly foreclose competition. Unfortunately, due to protective order issues, the court redacted information on the term(s) of SanDisk’s exclusives, so we don’t know precisely how long would be too long.

The court also determined that PNY had failed to adequately plead a lack of alternative channels of distribution. Although PNY alleged that non-retail channels were insufficient, the court held that PNY’s allegations were wholly conclusory and therefore insufficient. The court gave PNY leave to amend.

The case is a (relatively) uncommon exclusive dealing victory at the motion to dismiss stage for defendants. It shows that courts will scrutinize and look at exclusive dealing contracts (even if not attached to the complaint). It also demonstrates that in the case of short-term exclusives, and where the plaintiff does not allege in substantial detail why other distribution channels are insufficient to compete, plaintiffs’ claims may be dismissed.

Related posts:

Comments

  1. Dentsply involved a somewhat similar issue. The restraint in question there was imposed on a purchase order by purchase order basis, so the government was not able to point to an agreement with a lengthy term. The Third Circuit found a Section 2 violation “because of the nature of the relevant market and the established effectiveness of the restraint despite the lack of long term contracts between the manufacturer and its dealers.”

    • Howard Ullman says:

      The cumulative effect of a large number of short-term exclusives raises a potentially interesting issue.

Leave a Reply

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