In Re Bystolic Antitrust Litigation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that District Court abused its discretion in striking untimely alternative damages calculation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26
• holding that “the rule of reason is the proper framework” for assessing whether conditional rebates on long-term contracts are anticompetitive because “price-cost test cases are inapposite” when “price itself was not the clearly predominant mechanism of exclusion”
• holding plaintiff who “expressed no concrete desire” to “reenter the market” lacked standing to seek prospective relief on antitrust claim
• finding that agreements that conditioned discounts on market-share targets were de facto agreements to deal exclusively where the defendant was a dominant supplier in the relevant market
• stating that a “District Court has considerable discretion in matters regarding . . . case management, and a party challenging the district court’s conduct of discovery procedures bears a ‘heavy burden’”
• characterizing Tampa Electric as standing for the proposition that “exclusive dealing agreements ... [are] judged under the rule of reason”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).