Pepsico, Inc. v. The Coca-Cola Company

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “a relevant market definition is not a necessary component of a monopolization claim” where there is direct evidence of monopoly power
• noting that the plaintiff had “failed to adduce direct evidence that [defendant] . . . can control prices or exclude competition.”
• finding that “a 64 percent market share is insufficient to infer monopoly power” “[a]bsent additional evidence, such as an ability to control prices or exclude competition”
• finding “authority to support [plaintiffs] claim that a relevant market definition is not a necessary component of a monopolization claim”
• finding challenged contracts lawful, in part, because they were terminable at will
• viewing Toys \R\ Us as representing a minimum evidentiary threshold for a horizontal agreement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).