Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • BNL Food Investment v. Martek Biosciences Corp.

    Uploaded by

    jsherkow
    139 views35 pages
    This document appears to be a court filing related to an antitrust case. Over multiple pages, it discusses the definition of the relevant product market, including whether resellers and manufacturers that make their own products should be included. The filing examines the plaintiff's definition of the market and determines that, under the interchangeability test, the defendant has not identified any fatal issues with how the market is defined, though the plaintiff's initial pleading may have been unclear. It focuses on analyzing the realities and operations of the relevant market.

    Original Description:

    Summary judgment opinion in favor of defendant on antitrust claim

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document appears to be a court filing related to an antitrust case. Over multiple pages, it discusses the definition of the relevant product market, including whether resellers and manufacturers that make their own products should be included. The filing examines the plaintiff's definition of the market and determines that, under the interchangeability test, the defendant has not identified any fatal issues with how the market is defined, though the plaintiff's initial pleading may have been unclear. It focuses on analyzing the realities and operations of the relevant market.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    139 views35 pages

    BNL Food Investment v. Martek Biosciences Corp.

    Uploaded by

    jsherkow
    This document appears to be a court filing related to an antitrust case. Over multiple pages, it discusses the definition of the relevant product market, including whether resellers and manufacturers that make their own products should be included. The filing examines the plaintiff's definition of the market and determines that, under the interchangeability test, the defendant has not identified any fatal issues with how the market is defined, though the plaintiff's initial pleading may have been unclear. It focuses on analyzing the realities and operations of the relevant market.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 35

    Case 1:11-cv-00446-WDQ Document 92 Filed 03/28/13 Page 1 of 35

    Case 1:11-cv-00446-WDQ Document 92 Filed 03/28/13 Page 2 of 35

    Case 1:11-cv-00446-WDQ Document 92 Filed 03/28/13 Page 3 of 35

    Case 1:11-cv-00446-WDQ Document 92 Filed 03/28/13 Page 4 of 35

    Case 1:11-cv-00446-WDQ Document 92 Filed 03/28/13 Page 5 of 35

    Case 1:11-cv-00446-WDQ Document 92 Filed 03/28/13 Page 6 of 35

    Case 1:11-cv-00446-WDQ Document 92 Filed 03/28/13 Page 7 of 35

    Case 1:11-cv-00446-WDQ Document 92 Filed 03/28/13 Page 8 of 35

    Case 1:11-cv-00446-WDQ Document 92 Filed 03/28/13 Page 9 of 35

    Case 1:11-cv-00446-WDQ Document 92 Filed 03/28/13 Page 10 of 35

    Case 1:11-cv-00446-WDQ Document 92 Filed 03/28/13 Page 11 of 35

    Case 1:11-cv-00446-WDQ Document 92 Filed 03/28/13 Page 12 of 35

    Case 1:11-cv-00446-WDQ Document 92 Filed 03/28/13 Page 13 of 35

    Case 1:11-cv-00446-WDQ Document 92 Filed 03/28/13 Page 14 of 35

    Case 1:11-cv-00446-WDQ Document 92 Filed 03/28/13 Page 15 of 35

    Case 1:11-cv-00446-WDQ Document 92 Filed 03/28/13 Page 16 of 35

    use in infant formula.

    ECF No. 78-1 at 31.

    It contends this

    interpretation excludes resellers, companies that make their own DHA and ARA but do not sell to others, and product given away for testing purposes from the relevant product market. Id. at 32.

    Despite Marteks argument, under the interchangeability test there is no reason for the market to exclude resellers of DHA and ARA. There is no

    evidence that DHA and ARA that has been resold differ from BNLfoods DHA and ARA--nor does Martek argue such. Despite arguably unclear pleading by

    BNLfood, under the interchangeability rule, a reasonable jury could find that resellers are included in BNLfoods definition. at 404; Def. Ex. 2 at 134:6-20. See DuPont, 351 U.S.

    Similarly, manufacturers of infant

    formula who make their own DHA and ARA or distribute the phospholipids without change can be found to be included in the market. See Berlyn, 73

    F. Appx at 852-53 (adjusting analysis of market to the relevant consumer when improperly pled and argued). Marteks argument about BNLfoods

    description of the alleged market is too restrictive--its focus should be on the realities and operations of that market. See id. Martek has not

    shown any fatal deficiencies in BNLfoods definition of

    Case 1:11-cv-00446-WDQ Document 92 Filed 03/28/13 Page 17 of 35

    Case 1:11-cv-00446-WDQ Document 92 Filed 03/28/13 Page 18 of 35

    Case 1:11-cv-00446-WDQ Document 92 Filed 03/28/13 Page 19 of 35

    Case 1:11-cv-00446-WDQ Document 92 Filed 03/28/13 Page 20 of 35

    Case 1:11-cv-00446-WDQ Document 92 Filed 03/28/13 Page 21 of 35

    Case 1:11-cv-00446-WDQ Document 92 Filed 03/28/13 Page 22 of 35

    Case 1:11-cv-00446-WDQ Document 92 Filed 03/28/13 Page 23 of 35

    Case 1:11-cv-00446-WDQ Document 92 Filed 03/28/13 Page 24 of 35

    Case 1:11-cv-00446-WDQ Document 92 Filed 03/28/13 Page 25 of 35

    Case 1:11-cv-00446-WDQ Document 92 Filed 03/28/13 Page 26 of 35

    Case 1:11-cv-00446-WDQ Document 92 Filed 03/28/13 Page 27 of 35

    Case 1:11-cv-00446-WDQ Document 92 Filed 03/28/13 Page 28 of 35

    Case 1:11-cv-00446-WDQ Document 92 Filed 03/28/13 Page 29 of 35

    Case 1:11-cv-00446-WDQ Document 92 Filed 03/28/13 Page 30 of 35

    Case 1:11-cv-00446-WDQ Document 92 Filed 03/28/13 Page 31 of 35

    Case 1:11-cv-00446-WDQ Document 92 Filed 03/28/13 Page 32 of 35

    Case 1:11-cv-00446-WDQ Document 92 Filed 03/28/13 Page 33 of 35

    Case 1:11-cv-00446-WDQ Document 92 Filed 03/28/13 Page 34 of 35

    Case 1:11-cv-00446-WDQ Document 92 Filed 03/28/13 Page 35 of 35

    You might also like