Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 1 of 84

fA' 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

~"R";:tft1~EVENTH CIRCUIT 

IO~ E 

POLYPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC., a corporation, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

• FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

Respondent. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW 

Polypore International, Inc. hereby petitions the Court for review of the Order and 

Opinion of the Federal Trade Commission entered in In re Polypore International, Inc., Docket 

No. 9327, on November 5, 2010, and served on November 29,2010. In the Order under review, 

the Commission concluded that Petitioner's acquisition of Microporous L.P. violated Section 7 

of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18. The Commission ordered divestiture of the acquired assets, 

including assets located outside the United States, and also imposed certain ancillary orders. 

Pursuant to Local Rule 15-2, a copy of the public version of the Order and Opinion to be 

reviewed are attached as Exhibits A and B, respectively. 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 2 of 84

Dated: January 27, 2011 Respectfully submitted, 

Paul T. Denis 

Steven G. Bradbury 

Gorav Jindal 

Irene Ayzenberg-Lyman 

Sean P. McConnell 

DECHERTLLP 

1775 I Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20006 

Telephone No.: 202 261 3300 

Facsimile No.: 202 261 3333 

ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 3 of 84

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Pursuant to FED. R. ApP. P. IS(c) and Local Rule IS(c), I hereby certify that on January 

27, 2011, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on the following persons who were 

admitted to participate in the Agency proceedings, via Federal Express: 

Donald S. Clark 

Office of the Secretary 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

RoomH-I72 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

Catharine M. Moscatelli, Esq. 

Steven A. Dahm, Esq. 

Federal Trade Commission 

601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

William 1. Rikard, Jr., Esq. 

Eric D. Welsh, Esq. 

Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein, LLP 

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000 

Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 

Sean P. MccOI;nen 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 4 of 84

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

NO. ___ _ 

POLVPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC., a corporation, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

Respondent. 

SERVICE INSTRUCTIONS 

Pursuant to FED. R. App. P. 15(c) and Local Rule 15(c), the Circuit Clerk must serve a 

copy of the Petition for Review on the following: 

Donald S. Clark 

Office of the Secretary 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

RoomH-172 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

Catharine M. Moscatelli, Esq. 

Steven A. Dahm, Esq. 

Federal Trade Commission 

601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20001 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 5 of 84

Respectfully submitted, 

Paul T. Denis 

Steven G. Bradbury 

Gorav Jindal 

Irene Ayzenberg-Lyman 

Sean P. McConnell 

DECHERT LLP 

1775 I Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20006 

Telephone No.: 202 261 3300 

Facsimile No.: 202 261 3333 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 6 of 84

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Pursuant to FED. R. App. P. l5(c) and Local Rule l5(c), I hereby certify that on January 

27, 2011 , a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on the following persons who were 

admitted to participate in the Agency proceedings, via Federal Express: 

Donald S. Clark 

Office of the Secretary 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Room H-I72 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

Catharine M. Moscatelli, Esq. 

Steven A. Dahm, Esq. 

Federal Trade Commission 

601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

William 1. Rikard, Jr., Esq. 

Eric D. Welsh, Esq. 

Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein, LLP 

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000 

Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 

Sean P. McConnell 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 7 of 84

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

NO. ___ _ 

POLYPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC., a corporation, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

Respondent. 

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS 

Pursuant to FED. R. App. P. 26.1, Petitioner states that FMR, LLC owns 15% of 

Petitioner's stock. 

Respectfully submitted, 

7~:SJ~ Paul T. Denis 

Steven G. Bradbury 

Gorav lindal 

Irene Ayzenberg-Lyman 

Sean P. McConnell 

DECHERTLLP 

\ <; .,?Ij. . 

1775 I Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20006 

Telephone No.: 202261 3300 

Facsimile No.: 202 2613333 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 8 of 84

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Pursuant to FED. R. App. P. IS(c) and Local Rule IS(c), I hereby certify that on January 

26, 2011, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on the following persons who were 

admitted to participate in the Agency proceedings, via Federal Express: 

Donald S. Clark 

Office of the Secretary 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Room H-I72 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

Catharine M. Moscatelli, Esq. 

Steven A. Dahm, Esq. 

Federal Trade Commission 

601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

William 1. Rikard, Jr., Esq. 

Eric D. Welsh, Esq. 

Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein, LLP 

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000 

Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 

sYt-kL~ Sean P. McConnell 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 9 of 84

........ x i it 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 10 of 84

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

COMMISSIONERS: Jon Leibowitz, Chairman 

William E. Kovacic 

J. Thomas Rosch 

Edith Ramirez 

Julie Brill 

In the Matter of 

Polypore International, Inc. 

a corporation. 

Docket No. 9327 

FINAL ORDER 

The Commission has heard this matter upon the appeal of Respondent from the Initial 

Decision, and upon briefs and oral argument in support thereof and in opposition thereto. For 

the reasons stated in the accompanying Opinion of the Commission, the Commission has 

determined to sustain the Initial Decision with certain modifications: 

IT IS ORDERED that the Initial Decision of the Administrative Law Judge be, and it 

hereby is, adopted as the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Commission, to the 

extent not inconsistent with the findings of fact and conclusions contained in the accompanying 

Opinion. 

Other findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Commission are contained in the 

accompanying Opinion. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following Order to cease and desist be, and it 

hereby is, entered: 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 11 of 84

~ 

-"" 

ORDER 

I. 

IT IS ORDERED THAT, as used in the Order, the following definitions shall apply: 

A. "Acquirer" means any Person approved by the Commission pursuant to this Order to 

acquire Microporous. 

B. 

C. 

D. 

E. 

"Acquisition" means the acquisition of all of the outstanding shares of Microporous by 

Respondent Polypore pursuant to a Stock Purchase Agreement dated February 29, 2008. 

"Acquisition Date" means February 29, 2008. 

"Battery Separator(s)" means porous electronic insulators placed between positively and 

negatively charged lead plates in flooded lead-acid batteries to prevent electrical short 

circuits while allowing ionic current to flow through the separator. 

"Books and Records" means all originals and all copies of any operating, financial or 

other books, records, documents, data and files relating to Microporous, including, 

without limitation: customer files and records, customer lists, customer product 

specifications, customer purchasing histories, customer service and support materials, 

Customer Approvals and Information; accounting records; credit records and 

information; correspondence; research and development data and files; production 

records; distributor files; vendor files, vendor lists; advertising, promotional and 

marketing materials, including website content; sales materials; records relating to any 

employee who accepts employment with the Acquirer; educational materials; technical 

information, data bases, and other documents, information, and files of any kind, 

regardless whether the document, information, or files are stored or maintained in 

traditional paper format, by means of electronic, optical, or magnetic media or devices, 

photographic or video images, or any other format or media; provided, however, that 

where documents or other materials included in the Books and Records to be divested 

with Microporous contain information: (1) that relates both to Microporous and to 

Polypore's Retained Assets or its other products or businesses and cannot be segregated 

in a manner that preserves the usefulness of the information as it relates to Microporous; 

or (2) for which the relevant part has a legal obligation to retain the original copies, the 

relevant party shall be required to provide only copies or relevant excerpts of the 

documents and materials containing this information. In instances where such copies are 

provided to the Acquirer, the relevant party shall provide the Acquirer access to original 

documents under circumstances where copies of the documents are insufficient for 

evidentiary or regulatory purposes. The purpose of this proviso is to ensure that Polypore 

provides the Acquirer with the above described information without requiring Polypore 

to divest itself completely of information that, in content, also relates to its Retained 

Assets or its other products or businesses. 

2 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 12 of 84

--'!I\ 

-~ 

F. 

G. 

H. 

"Commission" means the Federal Trade Commission. 

"Confidential Business Information" means any non-pUblic infonnation relating to 

Microporous either prior to or after the Effective Date of Divestiture, including, but not 

limited to, all customer lists, price lists, distribution or marketing methods, or Intellectual 

Property relating to Microporous and: 

1. Obtained by Respondent prior to the Effective Date of Divestiture; or, 

2. Obtained by Respondent after the Effective Date of Divestiture, in the course of 

performing Respondent's obligations under any Divestiture Agreement; 

Provided, however, that Confidential Business Infonnation shall not include: 

l. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

Infonnation that Respondent can demonstrate it obtained prior to the Acquisition 

Date, other than information it obtained from Microporous during due diligence 

pursuant to any confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement; 

Information that is in the public domain when received by Respondent; 

Infonnation that is not in the public domain when received by Respondent and 

thereafter becomes public through no act or failure to act by Respondent; 

Infonnation that Respondent develops or obtains independently, without violating 

any applicable law or this Order; and 

5. Infonnation that becomes known to Respondent from a third party not in breach 

of applicable law or a confidentiality obligation with respect to the information. 

"Contracts" means all contracts or agreements of any kind related to Microporous, and all 

rights under such contracts or agreements, including: Microporous Customer Contracts, 

leases, software licenses, Intellectual Property licenses, warranties, guaranties, insurance 

agreements, employment contracts, distribution agreements, product swap agreements, 

sales contracts, supply agreements, utility contracts, collective bargaining agreements, 

confidentiality agreements, and nondisclosure agreements. 

l. "Customer" means any Person that is a direct or indirect purchaser of any Battery 

Separator. 

J. "Customer Approvals and Information" means, with respect to any Microporous Battery 

Separator(s): 

1. All consents, authorizations and other approvals, and pending applications and 

requests therefor, required by any Customer applicable or related to the research, 

3 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 13 of 84

K. 

2. 

development, manufacture, finishing, packaging, distribution, marketing or sale 

of any Battery Separator; and, 

All underlying information, data, filings, reports, correspondence or other 

materials used to obtain or apply for any of the foregoing, including, without 

limitation, all data submitted to and all correspondence with the Customer or any 

other Person. 

"Daramic Battery Separator(s)" means any Battery Separators manufactured or sold by 

Respondent as of the day before the Acquisition Date, and any Battery Separators 

manufactured or sold by Respondent after the Acquisition Date that do not utilize any 

Microporous Intellectual Property other than Shared Intellectual Property. 

L. "Direct Cost" means the cost of direct material and direct labor used to provide the 

relevant assistance or service. 

M. "Divestiture Agreement" means any agreement(s) between Respondent (or between a 

Divestiture Trustee appointed under this Order) and the Acquirer approved by the 

Commission, that effectuate the divestiture of Microporous required by Paragraphs II. or 

IV. of this Order, to accomplish the purpose and requirements of this Order, as well as all 

amendments, exhibits, attachments, agreements and schedules thereto, including, but not 

limited to, any Technical Assistance Agreement or Transition Services Agreement. 

N. "Divestiture Trustee" means a Person appointed pursuant to Paragraph IV. of this Order 

to accomplish the divestiture of Microporous. 

o. "Effective Date of Divestiture" means the date on which the divestiture of Microporous 

to an Acquirer pursuant to the requirements of Paragraph II. or IV. of this Order is 

completed. 

P. "Employee Information" means the following, to the full extent pennitted by applicable 

law: 

I. A complete and accurate list containing the name of each Microporous Employee; 

2. With respect to each such employee, the following infonnation: 

a. The date of hire and effective service date; 

b. Job title or position held; 

c. A specific description of the employee's responsibilities related to 

Microporous Battery Separators; prOVided, however, in lieu of this 

description, Respondent may provide the employee's most recent 

performance appraisal; 

4 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 14 of 84

Q. 

R. 

d. The base salary or current wages; 

e. The most recent bonus paid, aggregate annual compensation for 

Respondent's last fiscal year and current target or guaranteed bonus, if 

any; 

f. Employment status (i.e., active or on leave or disability; full-time or parttime); and 

g. Any other material terms and conditions of employment in regard to such 

employee that are not otherwise generally available to similarly situated 

employees; and 

3. At the proposed Acquirer's option, copies of all employee benefit plan 

descriptions (if any) applicable to the relevant employees. 

"Feistritz Plant" means all property and assets, tangible and intangible, owned, leased, or 

operated by Respondent and located or used in connection with the research, 

development, manufacture, finishing, packaging, distribution, marketing or sale of any 

one or more of the Microporous Battery Separators at the former Microporous facility in 

Feistritz, Austria, at any time from the Acquisition Date through the Effective Date of 

Divestiture, including, but not limited to: 

1. All real property interests (including fee simple and leasehold interests), including 

all rights, easements and appurtenances, together with all buildings, structures, 

facilities (including R&D and testing facilities), improvements, and fixtures, 

including, but not limited to, all Battery Separator production lines (including the 

two (2) production lines for polyethylene (PE) and/or CellForce Battery 

Separators ); 

2. All Tangible Personal Property; 

3. All governmental approvals, consents, licenses, permits, waivers, or other 

authorizations, to the extent assignable; and 

4. Inventories existing as of the Effective Date of Divestiture. 

Provided, however, that the definition of "Feistritz Plant" shall not include any assets 

used solely to manufacture Daramic Battery Separators. 

"Force Majeure Event" means whatever events, actions, occurrences or circumstances 

have been identified or specified as constituting "force majeure" or a "force majeure 

event" in a contract or agreement between the Respondent and a Customer for the supply 

of Battery Separators. 

5 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 15 of 84

S. "Governmental Entity(ies)" means any federal, provincial, state, county, local, or other 

political subdivision of the United States or any other country, or any department or 

agency thereof. 

T. "H& V Agreement" means the Cross Agency Agreement dated March 23, 2001, between 

Daramic, Inc. and Hollingsworth & Vose Company, and all amendments (including, but 

not limited to, the Renewal dated March 23, 2006), exhibits, attachments, agreements, 

and schedules thereto. 

U. "Intellectual Property" means Patents, Manufacturing Technology, Know-How, and 

Trade Names and Marks. 

V. "Inventories" means: 

w. 

x. 

Y. 

1. All inventories, stores and supplies of finished Battery Separators and work in 

progress; and, 

2. All inventories, stores and supplies of raw materials and other supplies related to 

the research, development, manufacture, finishing, packaging, distribution, 

marketing or sale of any Battery Separators. 

"Jungfer Technology" means all Intellectual Property owned or licensed by Respondent 

as a result of its acquisition of Separatorenerzeungung GmbH ("Jungfer") on November 

16,2001. 

"Know-How" means all know-how, trade secrets, techniques, systems, software, data 

(including data contained in software), formulae, designs, research and test procedures 

and information, inventions, processes, practices, protocols, standards, methods 

(including, but not limited to, test methods and results), customer service and support 

materials, and other confidential or proprietary technical, technological, business, 

research, development and other materials and infonnation related to the research, 

development, manufacture, finishing, packaging, distribution, marketing or sale of 

Battery Separators, and all rights in any jurisdiction to limit the use or disclosure thereof, 

anywhere in the world. 

"Line in Boxes" means all property and assets, tangible and intangible, related to any 

capacity expansions proposed, planned or under consideration by Microporous as of the 

Acquisition Date, including, but not limited to, all engineering plans, equipment, 

machinery, tooling, spare parts, and other tangible property, wherever located, relating to 

a proposed, planned or contemplated capacity expansion to be accomplished through 

installation of an additional Battery Separator production line at the Piney Flats Plant. 

z. "Manufacturing Technology" means all technology, technical information, data, trade 

secrets, Know-How, and proprietary information, anywhere in the world, related to the 

research, development, manufacture, finishing, packaging or distribution of Battery 

6 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 16 of 84

AA. 

Separators, including, but not limited to, all recipes, formulas, fonnulations, blend 

specifications, customer specifications, equipment (including repair and maintenance 

infonnation), tooling, spare parts, processes, procedures, product development records, 

trade secrets, manuals, quality assurance and quality control information and 

documentation, regulatory communications, and all other information relating to the 

above-described processes. 

"Microporous" means Microporous Holding Corporation, a corporation organized, 

existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware, 

with its offices and principal place of business as of the Acquisition Date located at 100 

Spear Street, Suite 100, San Francisco, CA 94111, and its joint ventures, subsidiaries, 

divisions, groups, and affiliates (including, but not limited to, Microporous Products, L.P. 

and Microporous Products, GmbH) controlled by Microporous Holding Corporation, and 

all assets of Microporous Holding Corporation acquired by Respondent in connection 

with the Acquisition, including, but not limited to: 

1. All of Respondent's rights, title and interest in and to the following property and 

assets, tangible and intangible, wherever located, and any improvements, 

replacements or additions thereto that have been created, developed, leased, 

purchased, or otherwise acquired by Respondent after the Acquisition Date, 

relating to the research, development, manufacture, finishing, packaging, 

distribution, marketing, or sale of Microporous Battery Separators: 

a. the Piney Flats Plant; 

b. the Feistritz Plant; 

c. the Line in Boxes; 

d. Microporous Intellectual Property; 

e. Contracts; and 

f. Books and Records; and 

2. All rights to use Shared Intellectual Property pursuant to a Shared Intellectual 

Property License; 

BB. "Microporous Battery Separator(s)" means all Battery Separators with respect to which 

Microporous was engaged in research, development, manufacture, finishing, packaging, 

distribution, marketing or sale as of the Acquisition Date, and all Battery Separators 

distributed, marketed or sold after the Acquisition Date using any Microporous Trade 

Names and Marks. 

7 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 17 of 84

~ 

• 

CC. "Microporous Copyrights" means all rights to all original works of authorship of any 

kind, both published and unpublished, relating to Microporous Battery Separators and 

any registrations and applications for registrations thereof and all rights to obtain and file 

for copyrights and registrations thereof. 

DO. "Microporous Customer Contracts" means all open purchase orders, contracts or 

agreements or Terminable Contracts for Microporous Battery Separators or for Battery 

Separators being supplied from the Piney Flats Plant or the Feistritz Plant at any time 

from the Acquisition Date through the Effective Date of Divestiture except for Daramic 

Battery Separators. 

EE. "Microporous Employee(s)" means any Person: 

1. Employed by Microporous as of the Acquisition Date; 

2. Employed at the Piney Flats Plant at any time from the Acquisition Date through 

the Effective Date of Divestiture; or 

3. Employed at the Feistritz Plant at any time from the Acquisition Date through the 

Effective Date of Divestiture. 

FF. "Microporous Intellectual Property" means all rights, title and interest in and to: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6 . 

All Microporous Patents; 

All Microporous Manufacturing Technology; 

All Microporous Know-How; 

All Microporous Trade Names and Marks; 

All Microporous Copyrights; and 

All rights in any jurisdiction anywhere in the world to sue and recover damages or 

obtain injunctive relief for infringement, dilution, misappropriation, violation or 

breach, or otherwise to limit the use or disclosure of any of the foregoing. 

GG. "Microporous Know-How" means all Know-How relating to the research, development, 

manufacture, finishing, packaging, distribution, marketing, or sale of Microporous 

Battery Separators or otherwise used in connection with Microporous. 

HH. "Microporous Manufacturing Technology" means all Manufacturing Technology relating 

to the research, development, manufacture, finishing, packaging, distribution, marketing, 

or sale of Microporous Battery Separators or otherwise used in connection with 

Microporous. 

8 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 18 of 84

II. "Microporous Patents" means all Patents relating to the research, development, 

manufacture, finishing, packaging, distribution, marketing, or sale of Microporous 

Battery Separators or otherwise used in connection with Microporous. 

JJ. "Microporous Trade Names and Marks" means all Trade Names and Marks relating to 

the research, development, manufacture, finishing, packaging, distribution, marketing, or 

sale of Microporous Battery Separators or otherwise used in connection with 

Microporous, including, but not limited to, all rights to commercial names, "doing 

business as" (d/b/a) names, service marks and applications for or using the words: 

"Microporous," "Amerace," "CeIlForce," "FLEX-SIL,""ACE-SIL;" and all rights in 

internet web sites and internet domain names using any of the above. 

KK. "Monitor Trustee" means a Person appointed with the Commission's approval to oversee 

the divestiture requirements of this Order, including Respondent's compliance with the 

Order's requirements. 

LL. "Patent(s)" means all patents, patents pending, patent applications and statutory invention 

registrations, including reissues, divisions, continuations, continuations-in-part, 

substitutions, extensions and reexaminations thereof, all inventions disclosed therein, all 

rights therein provided by international treaties and conventions, and all rights to obtain 

and file for patents and registrations thereto, anywhere in the world. 

MM. "Person" means any individual, partnership, joint venture, firm, corporation, association, 

trust, unincorporated organization, joint venture, or other business or governmental 

entity, and any subsidiaries, divisions, groups or affiliates thereof. 

NN. "Piney Flats Plant" means all property and assets, tangible and intangible, owned, leased, 

or operated by Respondent and located or used in connection with the research, 

development, manufacture, finishing, packaging, distribution, marketing or sale of any 

one or more of the Microporous Battery Separators at the fonner Microporous facility in 

Piney Flats, Tennessee, at any time from the Acquisition Date through the Effective Date 

of Divestiture, including, but not limited to: 

1. All real property interests (including fee simple and leasehold interests), including 

all rights, easements and appurtenances, together with all buildings, structures, 

facilities (including R&D and testing facilities), improvements, and fixtures, 

including, but not limited to, all Battery Separator production lines (including the 

three (3) production lines for Ace-Sil, Flex-Sil, and polyethylene (PE) and/or 

CellForce Battery Separators), pilot lines and test lines; 

2. All Tangible Personal Property; 

3. All governmental approvals, consents, licenses, permits, waivers, or other 

authorizations, to the extent assignable; and 

9 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 19 of 84

4. Inventories existing as of the Effective Date of Divestiture. 

Provided, however, that the definition of "Piney Flats Plant" shall not include any assets 

used solely to manufacture Daramic Battery Separators. 

00. "Polypore" or "Respondent" means Polypore International, Inc., its directors, officers, 

employees, agents, representatives, predecessors, successors, and assigns; and its joint 

ventures, subsidiaries, divisions, groups and affiliates controlled by Polypore 

International, Inc. (including, but not limited to, Daramic, LLC), and the respective 

directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, predecessors, successors, and 

assigns of each. 

PP. "Releasee(s)" means the Acquirer, any entity controlled by or under common control 

with the Acquirer, and any licensees, sublicensees, manufacturers, suppliers, and 

distributors of the Acquirer ("affiliates"); and any Customers of the Acquirer or of 

affiliates of the Acquirer. 

QQ. "Retained Asset(s)" means: 

1. Any propert(ies) or asset(s), tangible or intangible: 

a. That were owned, created, developed, leased, or operated by Polypore 

prior to the Acquisition; or 

b. That re1ate(s) solely to any Polypore product, service or business except 

what is included in the definition of Microporous under this Order; and 

2. Polypore's right to use, exploit, and improve Shared Intellectual Property; 

provided, however, that Polypore shall have no right to hinder, prevent, or enjoin 

the Acquirer's use, exploitation, or improvement of Shared Intellectual Property, 

or to use without the Acquirer's consent any improvements after the Effective 

Date of Divestiture to the Shared Intellectual Property by the Acquirer. 

RR. "Retention Bonus" means the compensation provided for each of the Microporous 

Employees. 

ss. "Shared Intellectual Property" means all of the following: 

1. any Intellectual Property that is a Retained Asset that was also used in connection 

with the research, development, manufacture, finishing, packaging, distribution, 

marketing, or sale of Microporous Battery Separators or otherwise used in 

connection with Microporous at any time from the Acquisition Date through the 

Effective Date of Divestiture; or 

10 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 20 of 84

2. any Intellectual Property that has been used by Respondent in connection with a 

Retained Asset that was also used in connection with the research, development, 

manufacture, finishing, packaging, distribution, marketing, or sale of 

Microporous Battery Separators or otherwise used in connection with 

Microporous at any time from the Acquisition Date through the Effective Date of 

Divestiture. 

IT. "Shared Intellectual Property License" means: (i) a worldwide, royalty free, perpetual, 

irrevocable, transferrable, sub licensable, non-exclusive license to all Shared Intellectual 

Property owned by or licensed to Respondent for any use, and (ii) such tangible 

embodiments of the licensed rights (including but not limited to physical and electronic 

copies) as may be necessary to enable the Acquirer to utilize the licensed rights. 

UU. "Tangible Personal Property" means all machinery, equipment, spare parts, tools, and 

tooling (whether customer specific or otherwise); furniture, office equipment, computer 

hardware, supplies and materials; vehicles and rolling stock; and other items of tangible 

personal property of every kind whether owned or leased, together with any express or 

implied warranty by the manufacturers, sellers or lessors of any item or component part 

thereof, and all maintenance records and other documents relating thereto. 

VV. "Technical Services Agreement" means the provision by Respondent Polypore at Direct 

Cost of all advice, consultation, and assistance reasonably necessary for any Acquirer to 

receive and use, in any manner related to achieving the purposes of this Order, any asset, 

right, or interest relating to Microporous. 

WW. "Tenninable Contract(s)" means all contracts or agreements and rights under contracts or 

agreements between the Respondent and any Customer(s) for the supply of any Battery 

Separator in or to North America (including the entirety of any contract or agreement that 

includes in the same contract or agreement the supply of Battery Separators both inside 

and outside North America) in effect at any time from the date the Order becomes final 

and effective through the Effective Date of Divestiture; provided, however, that 

"Tenninable Contracts" does not include any contracts or agreements between 

Respondent or Microporous and any Customer(s) for the supply of any Battery Separator 

that was entered into prior to the Acquisition Date, except to the extent such contract or 

agreement was amended or modified, including changes to the pricing tenns, after the 

Acquisition Date; provided further, however, that such amended or modified portion of 

such contract or agreement shall be considered a "Tenninable Contract." 

XX. "Trade Names and Marks" means all trade names, commercial names and brand names, 

all registered and unregistered trademarks, including registrations and applications for 

registration thereof(and all renewals, modifications, and extensions thereot), trade dress, 

logos, service marks and applications, geographical indications or designations, and all 

rights related thereto under common law and otherwise, and the goodwill symbolized by 

and associated therewith, anywhere in the world. 

11 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 21 of 84

YY. 

A. 

B. 

"Transition Services Agreement" means an agreement requiring Respondent Polypore to 

provide at Direct Cost all services reasonably necessary to transfer administrative support 

services to the Acquirer of Microporous, including, but not limited to, such services 

related to payroll, employee benefits, accounts receivable, accounts payable, and other 

administrative and logistical support. 

II. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT: 

Not later than six (6) months after the date the divestiture provisions of this Order 

become final and effective, Respondent shall divest Microporous, absolutely and in good 

faith, and at no minimum price, to an Acquirer that receives the prior approval of the 

Commission and in a manner, including pursuant to a Divestiture Agreement, that 

receives the prior approval of the Commission. 

Respondent shall comply with all terms of the Divestiture Agreement approved by the 

Commission pursuant to this Order, which agreement shall be deemed incorporated by 

reference into this Order, and any failure by Respondent to comply with any term of the 

Divestiture Agreement shall constitute a failure to comply with this Order. The 

Divestiture Agreement shall not reduce, limit or contradict, or be construed to reduce, 

limit or contradict, the terms of this Order; provided, however, that nothing in this Order 

shall be construed to reduce any rights or benefits of any Acquirer or to reduce any 

obligations of Respondent under such agreement; provided further, however, that if any 

term of the Divestiture Agreement varies from the terms of this Order ("Order Term"), 

then to the extent that Respondent cannot fully comply with both terms, the Order Term 

shall determine Respondent's obligations under this Order. Notwithstanding any 

paragraph, section, or other provision of the Divestiture Agreement, any failure to meet 

any condition precedent to closing (whether waived or not) or any modification of the 

Divestiture Agreement, without the prior approval of the Commission, shall constitute a 

failure to comply with this Order. 

C. Prior to the Effective Date of Divestiture, Respondent shall: 

1. Restore to Microporous any assets of Microporous as of the Acquisition Date that 

were removed from Microporous at any time from the Acquisition Date through 

the Effective Date of Divestiture, other than Battery Separators sold in the 

ordinary course of business and Inventories consumed in the ordinary course of 

business; 

2. To the extent any fixtures or Tangible Personal Property have been removed from 

the Feistritz Plant, the Piney Flats Plant or the Line in Boxes after the Acquisition 

Date and not returned or replaced with equivalent assets, such fixtures or 

Tangible Personal Property shall be returned and restored to good working order 

12 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 22 of 84

3. 

suitable for use under nonnal operating conditions or replaced with equivalent 

assets; 

Secure at its sole expense all consents and waivers from Persons that are 

necessary to divest any property or assets, tangible or intangible (including, but 

not limited to, any Contract), of Microporous to the Acquirer; provided, however, 

that in instances where (i) Microporous Battery Separators are sold together with 

Daramic Battery Separators under the same Tenninable Contract, Respondent 

shall only be required to obtain such consents and waivers from the Customer as 

necessary to divest that portion of the Terminable Contract pertaining to 

Microporous Battery Separators; or (ii) any Contracts (including, but not limited 

to, supply agreements) are utilized in connection with the manufacture of 

Microporous Battery Separators and Daramic Battery Separators under the same 

Contract, Respondent shall only be required to obtain such consents and waivers 

from the other contracting party as necessary to divest that portion of the Contract 

pertaining to Microporous Battery Separators; provided further, however, that if 

for any reason Respondent is unable to accomplish such an assignment or transfer 

of Contracts, it shall enter into such agreements, contracts, or licenses as are 

necessary to realize the same effect as such transfer or assignment; and 

4. Grant to the Acquirer a Shared Intellectual Property License for use in connection 

with Microporous as divested pursuant to this Order. 

D. Respondent shall take all actions reasonably necessary to assist the Acquirer in 

evaluating, recruiting and employing any Microporous Employees, including (at the 

Acquirer's option), but not limited to, the following: 

1. 

2. 

Not later than thirty (30) days before the execution of a Divestiture Agreement, 

Respondent shall: (i) provide the Acquirer with a list of all Microporous 

Employees, and Employee Infonnation for each Person on the list; (ii) provide 

any available contact infonnation, including last known address for any Person 

fonnerly employed as a Microporous Employee whose employment tenninated 

prior to execution of a Divestiture Agreement; (iii) allow the Acquirer an 

opportunity to interview any Microporous Employees personally, and outside the 

presence or hearing of any employee or agent of Respondent; and, (iv) allow the 

Acquirer to inspect the personnel files and other documentation relating to such 

Microporous Employees, to ~he extent pennitted under applicable laws; 

Respondent shall: (i) not directly or indirectly impede or interfere with the 

Acquirer's offer of employment to any Microporous Employee(s); (ii) not directly 

or indirectly attempt to persuade, or offer any incentive to, any Microporous 

Employee(s) to decline employment with the Acquirer; (iii) remove any 

contractual impediments and irrevocably waive any legal or equitable rights it 

may have that may deter any Microporous Employee from accepting employment 

with the Acquirer, including, but not limited to, any non-compete or 

13 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 23 of 84

3. 

confidentiality provisions of employment or other contracts with Respondent; 

provided, however, that Respondent may enforce confidentiality provisions 

related to Daramic Battery Separators; and, 

Respondent shall: (i) continue to extend to any Microporous Employees, during 

their employment prior to the Effective Date of Divestiture, all employee benefits 

offered by Respondent, including regularly scheduled or merit raises and bonuses, 

and regularly scheduled vesting of all pension benefits; (ii) pay a Retention Bonus 

to any Microporous Employee(s) to whom the Acquirer has made a written offer 

of employment who accepts a position with the Acquirer at the time of divestiture 

of Microporous. 

E. For a period of two (2) years from the Effective Date of Divestiture, Respondent shall 

not: 

F. 

1. 

2. 

directly or indirectly solicit or induce, or attelnpt to solicit or induce, any 

Microporous Employee who has accepted an offer of employment with, or who is 

employed by, the Acquirer to terminate his or her employment relationship with 

the Acquirer; or 

hire or enter into any arrangement for the services of any Microporous Employee 

who has accepted an offer of employment with, or who is employed by, the 

Acquirer; 

Provided, however, Respondent may do the following: (i) advertise for employees in 

newspapers, trade publications, or other media not targeted specifically at anyone or 

more of the employees of the Acquirer; (ii) hire any Microporous Employee whose 

employment has been terminated by the Acquirer; or (iii) hire a Microporous Employee 

who has applied for employment with Respondent, provided that such application was 

not solicited or induced in violation of this Order. 

Respondent shall include in any Divestiture Agreement related to Microporous the 

following provisions: 

1. Respondent shall covenant to the Acquirer that Respondent shall not join, file, 

prosecute or maintain any suit, in law or equity, either directly or indirectly 

through a third part, against the Acquirer or any Releasees under Intellectual 

Property that is owned or licensed by Respondent as of the Effective Date of 

Divestiture, including, but not limited to, the Jungfer Technology, if such suit 

would have the potential to interfere with the Acquirer's freedom to practice in the 

research, development, manufacture, use, import, export, distribution, offer to sell 

or sale of Microporous. Battery Separators; 

2. Upon reasonable notice and request from the Acquirer to Respondent, 

Respondent shall provide, in a timely manner, at no greater than Direct Cost, 

14 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 24 of 84

assistance of knowledgeable employees of the Respondent to assist the Acquirer 

to defend against, respond to, or otherwise participate in any litigation related to 

the Microporous Intellectual Property or Shared Intellectual Property; and 

3. At the option of the Acquirer: 

a. A Technical Services Agreement, provided, however, the term of any 

Technical Services Agreement shall be at the option of the Acquirer, but 

not longer than two (2) years from the Effective Date of Divestiture. 

b. A Transition Services Agreement, provided, however, the term of the 

Transition Services Agreement shall be at the option of the Acquirer, but 

not longer than two (2) years from the Effective Date of Divestiture; 

Provided, however, that Respondent shall not (i) require the Acquirer to pay 

compensation for services under such agreements that exceeds the Direct Cost of 

providing such goods and services, or (ii) terminate its ohligation(s) under such 

agreements because of a material breach by the Acquirer of any such agreement 

in the absence of a final order by a court of competent jurisdiction, or (iii) seek to 

limit the damages (such as indirect, special, and consequential damages) which 

any Acquirer would be entitled to receive in the event of Respondent's breach of 

any such agreement. 

G. Respondent shall: 

1. submit to the Acquirer, at Respondent's expense, all Confidential Business 

Information; 

2. deliver such Confidential Business Information as follows: (i) in good faith; (ii) 

as soon as practicable, avoiding any delays in transmission of the respective 

information; and (iii) in a manner that ensures its completeness and accuracy and 

that fully preserves its usefulness; 

3. pending complete delivery of all such Confidential Business Information to the 

Acquirer, provide the Acquirer and the Monitor Trustee (if any has been 

appointed) with access to all such Confidential Business Information and 

employees who possess or are able to locate such information for the purposes of 

identifying the books, records, and files that contain such Confidential Business 

Information and facilitating the delivery in a manner consistent with this Order; 

4. not use, directly or indirectly, any such Confidential Business Information (other 

than as necessary to comply with the following: (i) the requirements of this 

Order; (ii) the Respondent's ob1igations to the Acquirer under the terms of any 

Divestiture Agreement; or (iii) applicable Law); 

15 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 25 of 84

5. 

6. 

7. 

not disclose or convey any such Confidential Business Information, directly or 

indirectly, to any Person except the Acquirer, the Monitor Trustee, or the 

Commission; 

Respondent shall devise and implement measures to protect against the storage, 

distribution, and use of Confidential Business Information that is not expressly 

permitted by this Order. These measures shall include, but not be limited to, 

restrictions placed on access by Persons to information available or stored on any 

of Respondent's computers or computer networks; and 

Respondent may use Confidential Business Information only (i) for the purpose 

of performing Respondent's obligations under this Order; or, (ii) to ensure 

compliance with legal and regulatory requirements; to perform required auditing 

functions; to provide accounting, information technology and credit-underwriting 

services, to provide legal services associated with actual or potential litigation and 

transactions; and to monitor and ensure compliance with financial, tax reporting, 

governmental environmental, health, and safety requirements. 

H. The purpose of the divestiture of Microporous is to create an independent, viable and 

effective competitor in the markets in which Microporous was engaged at the time of the 

Acquisition Date, and to remedy the lessening of competition reSUlting from the 

Acquisition as alleged in the Commission's Complaint. 

III. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT: 

A. 

B. 

C. 

Within thirty (30) days after this Order becomes final and effective, Respondent shall 

retain a Monitor Trustee, acceptable to the Commission, to monitor Respondent's 

compliance with its obligations and responsibilities under this Order, consult with 

Commission staff, and report to the Commission regarding Respondent's compliance 

with its obligations and responsibilities under this Order. 

If Respondent fails to retain a Monitor Trustee as provided in Paragraph llI.A. of this 

Order, a Monitor Trustee, acceptable to the Commission, shall be identified and selected 

by the Commission's staff within forty-five (45) days after this Order becomes final and 

effective. 

Respondent shall consent to the following terms and conditions regarding the powers, 

duties, authorities, and responsibilities of the Monitor Trustee selected under Paragraph 

III.A or Ill.B. of this Order: 

1. The Monitor Trustee shall have the power and authority to monitor Respondent's 

compliance with the terms of this Order and shall exercise such power and 

authority and carry out the duties and responsibilities of the Monitor Trustee 

16 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 26 of 84

2. 

pursuant to the tenns of this Order in a manner consistent with the purposes of the 

Order and in consultation with Commission's staff. 

Within ten (10) days after the Commission's approval of the Monitor Trustee, 

Respondent shall execute an agreement that, subject to the approval of the 

Commission, confers on the Monitor Trustee all the rights and powers necessary 

to permit the Monitor Trustee to monitor Respondent's compliance with the terms 

of this Order in a manner consistent with the purposes of this Order. If requested 

by Respondent, the Monitor Trustee shall sign a confidentiality agreement 

prohibiting the use, or the disclosure to anyone other than the Commission (or any 

Person retained by the Monitor Trustee pursuant to Paragraph III.C.5. of this 

Order), of any competitively sensitive or proprietary information gained as a 

result of his or her role as Monitor Trustee, for any purpose other than 

performance of the Monitor Trustee's duties under this Order. 

3. The Monitor Trustee shall serve until the expiration of the period for Customers 

to seek reopening and renegotiation or termination of Terminable Contracts as 

provided in Paragraph VI. of this Order; provided, however, that the Commission 

may modify this period as may be necessary or appropriate to accomplish the 

purposes of the Order. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

Subject to any demonstrated legally recognized privilege, the Monitor Trustee 

shall have full and complete access to Respondent's personnel, books, documents, 

records kept in the normal course of business, facilities and technical information, 

and such other relevant information as the Monitor Trustee may reasonably 

request, related to Respondent's compliance with its obligations under the Order, 

including, but not limited to, its obligations related to Microporous assets. 

Respondent shall cooperate with any reasonable request of the Monitor Trustee 

and shall take no action to interfere with or impede the Monitor Trustee's ability 

to monitor Respondent's compliance with the Order. 

The Monitor Trustee shall serve, without bond or other security, at the expense of 

Respondent on such reasonable and customary terms and conditions as the 

Commission may set. The Monitor Trustee shall have authority to employ, at the 

expense of the Respondent, such consultants, accountants, attorneys and other 

representatives and assistants as are reasonably necessary to carry out the Monitor 

Trustee's duties and responsibilities. The Monitor Trustee shall account for all 

expenses incurred, including fees for his or her services, subject to the approval of 

the Commission. 

Respondent shall indemnify the Monitor Trustee and hold the Monitor Trustee 

harmless against any losses, claims, damages, liabilities, or expenses arising out 

of, or in connection with, the perfonnance of the Monitor Trustee's duties, 

including all reasonable fees of counsel and other reasonable expenses incurred in 

connection with the preparations for, or defense of, any claim, whether or not 

17 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 27 of 84

D. 

E. 

F. 

7. 

8. 

resulting in any liability, except to the extent that such losses, claims, damages, 

liabilities, or expenses result from the Monitor Trustee's gross negligence or 

willful misconduct. For purposes of this Paragraph Ill.C.6., the term "Monitor 

Trustee" shall include all Persons retained by the Monitor Trustee pursuant to 

Paragraph lII.C.5. of this Order. 

Respondent shall provide copies of reports to the Monitor Trustee in accordance 

with the requirements of this Order and/or as otherwise provided in any 

agreement approved by the Commission. 

The Monitor Trustee shall report in writing to the Commission (i) every sixty (60) 

days from the date the Monitor Trustee is appointed, (ii) at the time a divestiture 

package is presented to the Commission for its approval, and (iii) at any other 

time as requested by the staff of the Commission, concerning Respondent's 

compliance with this Order. 

The Commission may, among other things, require the Monitor Trustee and each of the 

Monitor Trustee's consultants, accountants, attorneys and other representatives and 

assistants to sign an appropriate confidentiality agreement related to Commission 

materials and information received in connection with the performance of the Monitor 

Trustee's duties. 

If at any time the Commission determines that the Monitor Trustee has ceased to act or 

failed to act diligently, the Commission may appoint a substitute Monitor Trustee in the 

same manner as provided in this Paragraph. 

The Commission may on its own initiative, or at the request of the Monitor Trustee, issue 

such additional orders or directions as may be necessary or appropriate to assure 

compliance with the requirements of the Order. 

G. Respondent shall cooperate with the Monitor Trustee appointed pursuant to this 

Paragraph in the performance any duties and responsibilities under this Order. 

IV. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT: 

A. If Respondent has not divested, absolutely and in good faith, Microporous within the 

time period or in the manner required by Paragraph II. of this Order, then the 

Commission may at any time appoint a Divestiture Trustee to divest Microporous to an 

Acquirer and in a manner, including pursuant to a Divestiture Agreement, that satisfies 

the purposes and requirements of this Order. 

B. In the event that the Commission or the Attorney General brings an action pursuant to § 

5(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(1), or any other statute 

18 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 28 of 84

C. 

D. 

enforced by the Commission, for any failure by Respondent to comply with this Order, 

Respondent shall consent to the appointment of a Divestiture Trustee in such action. 

Neither the decision of the Commission to appoint a Divestiture Trustee, nor the decision 

of the Commission not to appoint a Divestiture Trustee, shall preclude the Commission 

or the Attorney General from seeking civil penalties or any other available relief, 

including a court-appointed trustee, pursuant to § 5( 1) of the Federal Trade Commission 

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(1), or any other statute enforced by the Commission, for any failure 

by the Respondent to comply with this Order. 

The Commission shall select the Divestiture Trustee, subject to the consent of 

Respondent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. The Divestiture Trustee 

shall be a Person with experience and expertise in acquisitions and divestitures and may 

be the same Person as the Monitor Trustee appointed under Paragraph Ill. of this Order. 

If Respondent has not opposed, in writing, including the reasons for opposing, the 

selection of any proposed Divestiture Trustee within ten (10) days after notice by the 

staff of the Commission to Respondent of the identity of any proposed Divestiture 

Trustee, Respondent shall be deemed to have consented to the selection of the proposed 

Divestiture Trustee. 

Within ten (10) days after appointment of the Divestiture Trustee, Respondent shall 

execute a trust agreement ("Divestiture Trustee Agreement") that, subject to the prior 

approval of the Commission transfers to the Divestiture Trustee all rights and powers 

necessary to effect the relevant divestiture, and to enter into any relevant agreements, 

required by this Order. 

E. If a Divestiture Trustee is appointed by the Commission or a court pursuant to this 

Paragraph IV. of this Order, Respondent shall consent to, and the Divestiture Trustee 

Agreement shall include, the following terms and conditions regarding the Divestiture 

Trustee's powers, duties, authority, and responsibilities: 

1. Subject to the prior approval of the Commission, the Divestiture Trustee shall 

have the exclusive power and authority to divest relevant assets or enter into 

relevant agreements pursuant to the terms of this Order and in a manner 

consistent with the purposes of this Order. 

2. The Divestiture Trustee shall have twelve (12) months from the date the 

Commission approves the Divestiture Trustee Agreement described in this 

Paragraph IV. of this Order to divest relevant assets pursuant to the terms of this 

Order. If, however, at the end of the applicable twelve-month period, the 

Divestiture Trustee has submitted to the Commission a plan of divestiture, or 

believes that divestiture can be achieved within a reasonable time, such period 

may be extended by the Commission, or, in the case of a court-appointed trustee, 

by the court. 

19 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 29 of 84

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

Subject to any demonstrated legally recognized privilege, the Divestiture Trustee 

shall have full and complete access to the personnel, books, records and facilities 

of Respondent related to Microporous or related to any other relevant 

information, as the Divestiture Trustee may request. Respondent shall develop 

such financial or other information as the Divestiture Trustee may request and 

shall cooperate with the Divestiture Trustee. Respondent shall take no action to 

interfere with or impede the Divestiture Trustee's accomplishment of his or her 

responsibilities. At the option of the Commission, any delays in divestiture or 

entering into any agreement caused by Respondent shall extend the time for 

divestiture under this Paragraph IV. in an amount equal to the delay, as 

determined by the Commission or, for a court-appointed Divestiture Trustee, by 

the court. 

The Divestiture Trustee Agreement shall prohibit the Divestiture Trustee, and 

each of the Divestiture Trustee's consultants, accountants, attorneys, and other 

representatives and assistants from disclosing, except to the Commission (and in 

the case of a court-appointed trustee, to the court) Confidential Business 

Information; provided, however, Confidential Business Information may be 

disclosed to potential acquirers and to the Acquirer as may be reasonably 

necessary to achieve the divestiture required by this Order. The Divestiture 

Trustee Agreement shall terminate when the divestiture required by this Order is 

consummated. 

The Divestiture Trustee shall use commercially reasonable best efforts to 

negotiate the most favorable price and terms available in each contract that is 

submitted to the Commission, subject to Respondent's absolute and unconditional 

obligation to divest at no minimum price. The divestiture shall be made to, and a 

Divestiture Agreement executed with, an Acquirer in the manner set forth in 

Paragraph II. of this Order; provided, however, if the Divestiture Trustee receives 

bona fide offers from more than one acquiring entity, and if the Commission 

determines to approve more than one acquiring entity, the Divestiture Trustee 

shall divest to the acquiring entity or entities selected by Respondent from among 

those approved by the Commission, provided further, however, that Respondent 

shall select such entity within five (5) days of receiving notification of the 

Commission's approval. 

The Divestiture Trustee shall serve, without bond or other security, at the expense 

of Respondent, on such reasonable and customary terms and conditions as the 

Commission or a court may set. The Divestiture Trustee shall have the authority 

to employ, at the expense of Respondent, such consultants, accountants, 

attorneys, investment bankers, business brokers, appraisers, and other 

representatives and assistants as are necessary to carry out the Divestiture 

Trustee's duties and responsibilities. The Divestiture Trustee shall account for all 

monies derived from the divestiture and all expenses incurred. After approval by 

the Commission and, in the case of a court-appointed trustee, by the court, of the 

20 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 30 of 84

7. 

8. 

account of the trustee, including fees for his or her services, all remaining monies 

shall be paid at the direction of Respondent. The Divestiture Trustee's 

compensation shall be based at least in significant part on a commission 

arrangement contingent on the Divestiture Trustee's locating an Acquirer and 

assuring compliance with this Order. The powers, duties, and responsibilities of 

the Divestiture Trustee (including, but not limited to, the right to incur fees or 

other expenses) shall terminate when the divestiture required by this Order is 

consummated, and the Divestiture Trustee has provided an accounting for all 

monies derived from the divestiture and all expenses occurred. 

Respondent shall indemnify the Divestiture Trustee and hold the Divestiture 

Trustee harmless against any losses, claims, damages, liabilities, or expenses 

arising out of, or in connection with, the performance of the Divestiture Trustee's 

duties, including all reasonable fees of counsel and other expenses incurred in 

connection with the preparation for, or defense of, any claim, whether or not 

resulting in any liability, except to the extent that such losses, claims, damages, 

liabilities, or expenses result from gross negligence, wilful or wanton acts, or bad 

faith by the Divestiture Trustee. For purposes of this Paragraph, the term 

"Divestiture Trustee" shall include all Persons retained by the Divestiture Trustee 

pursuant to Paragraph IV.E.6. of this Order. 

The Divestiture Trustee shall have no obligation or authority to operate or 

maintain Microporous. 

9. The Divestiture Trustee shall report in writing to the Commission every two (2) 

months concerning his or her efforts to divest and enter into agreements related to 

Microporous, and Respondent's compliance with the terms of this Order. 

F. If the Commission determines that the Divestiture Trustee has ceased to act or failed to 

act diligently, the Commission may appoint a substitute trustee in the same manner as 

provided in this Paragraph IV. of this Order. 

G. 

H. 

The Commission or, in the case of a court-appointed trustee, the court, may on its own 

initiative or at the request of the Divestiture Trustee issue such additional orders or 

directions as may be necessary or appropriate to comply with the terms of this Order. 

Respondent shall comply with all terms of the Divestiture Trustee Agreement, and any 

breach by Respondent of any term of the Divestiture Trustee Agreement shall constitute a 

violation of this Order. Notwithstanding any paragraph, section, or other provision of the 

Divestiture Trustee Agreement, any modification of the Divestiture Trustee Agreement, 

without the prior approval of the Commission, shall constitute a failure to comply with 

this Order. 

21 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 31 of 84

A. 

v. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT: 

From the date this Order becomes final and effective through the Effective Date of 

Divestiture, Respondent shall take such actions as are necessary to maintain the full 

economic viability, marketability, and competitiveness of Microporous, and shall prevent 

the destruction, removal, wasting, deterioration, sale, disposition, transfer, or impairment 

of Microporous and assets related thereto except for ordinary wear and tear, including, 

but not limited to, continuing in effect and maintaining Intellectual Property, Contracts, 

Trade Names and Marks, and renewing or extending any leases or licenses that expire or 

terminate prior to the Effective Date of Divestiture. 

B. Respondent shall maintain the operations of Microporous in the ordinary course of 

business and in accordance with past practice (including regular repair and maintenance 

of the assets included within Microporous). Among other things as may be necessary, 

Respondent shall: 

1. Maintain a work force at least as equivalent in size, training, and expertise to 

what was associated with Microporous prior to March 1, 2010; 

2. Assure that Respondent's employees with primary responsibility for managing 

and operating Microporous are not transferred or reassigned to other areas within 

Respondent's organizations except for transfer bids initiated by employees 

pursuant to Respondent's regular, established job posting policy; 

3. Provide sufficient working capital to operate Microporous at least at current rates 

of operation, to meet all capital calls with respect to Microporous and to carry on, 

at least at their scheduled pace, all capital projects, business plans and 

promotional activities; 

4. Make available for use by Microporous funds sufficient to perform all routine 

maintenance and all other maintenance as may be necessary to, and all 

replacements of, the assets of Microporous; 

5. Use best efforts to preserve and maintain the existing relationships with 

Customers, suppliers, vendors, private and Governmental Entities, and other 

Persons having business relations with Microporous; and 

6. Except as part of a divestiture approved by the Commission pursuant to this 

Order, not remove, sell, lease, assign, transfer, license, pledge for collateral, or 

otherwise dispose of Microporous, provided however, that nothing in this 

provision shall prohibit Respondent from such activities in the ordinary course of 

business consistent with past practices. 

22 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 32 of 84

VI. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT: 

A. Respondent shall allow all Customers with Terminable Contracts the right and option 

unilaterally to reopen and renegotiate or to terminate their contracts, solely at the 

Customer's option, without penalty, forfeiture or other charge to the customer, and 

consistent with the requirements of this Order including the following: 

1. No later than ten (10) days from the date this Order becomes final and effective, 

Respondent shall notify all Customers with Terminable Contracts of their rights 

under this Order and, for each such Terminable Contract, offer the Customer the 

opportunity to reopen and renegotiate or to terminate their contract(s). 

Respondent shall send written notification of this requirement and a copy of this 

Order and the Complaint, by certified mail with return receipt requested to: (i) 

the person designated in the Terminable Contract to receive notices from 

Respondent; or (ii) the Chief Executive Officer and General Counsel of the 

Customer. Respondent shall keep a file of such return receipts for three (3) years 

after the date on which this Order becomes final and effective. 

2. No later that ten (10) days from the Effective Date of Divestiture, Respondent 

shall send written notification of the Effective Date of Divestiture to all 

Customers with Terminable Contracts, by certified mail with return receipt 

requested to: (i) the person designated in the Terminable Contract to receive 

notices from Respondent; or (ii) the Chief Executive Officer and General Counsel 

of the Customer. Respondent shall keep a file of such return receipts for three (3) 

years after the date on which this Order becomes final and effective. 

3. A Customer may exercise its option to reopen and renegotiate or terminate any 

Terminable Contract by sending by certified mail, return receipt requested, a 

written notice to Respondent either to: (i) the address for notice stated in the 

Contract; or, (ii) Respondent's principal place of business at any time prior to five 

(5) years after the Effective Date of Divestiture. The written notice shall identify 

the Terminable Contract that will be reopened or terminated, and the date upon 

which any termination shall be effective; provided, however, that: (a) a Customer 

with more than one Terminable Contract who sends written notice with regard to 

less than all of its Terminable Contracts shall not lose its opportunity to reopen 

and renegotiate or terminate any remaining Terminable Contracts; (b) any 

Customer who reopens and renegotiates a Terminable Contract prior to the 

Effective Date of Divestiture shall have a further opportunity to reopen and 

renegotiate or terminate such Terminable Contract after the Effective Date of 

Divestiture at any time prior to five (5) years after the Effective Date of 

Divestiture; (c) Respondent shall not be obligated to reopen and renegotiate or 

terminate, as the case may be, a Terminable Contract on less than thirty (30) days' 

notice; and (d) any request by a Customer to reopen and renegotiate or terminate a 

23 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 33 of 84

A. 

4. 

5. 

Tenninable Contract on less than thirty (30) days' notice shall be treated by 

Respondent as a request to reopen and renegotiate or tenninate, as the case may 

be, effective thirty (30) days from the date of the request. 

Respondent shall not directly or indirectly: 

a. Require any Customer to make or pay any payment, penalty, or charge 

for, or provide any consideration relating to, or otherwise deter, the 

exercise of the option to reopen and renegotiate or tenninate or the 

reopening and renegotiation or termination of any Tenninable Contract; or 

b. Retaliate against, or take any action adverse to the economic interests of, 

any Customer that exercises its right under the Order to reopen and 

renegotiate or tenninate any Tenninable Contract; 

Provided, however, that Respondent may enforce Contracts, or seek judicial 

remedies for breaches of Contracts, based upon rights or causes of action that 

accrued prior to the exercise by a Customer of an option to tenninate a Contract. 

Respondent shall include in the Divestiture Agreement a requirement that the 

Acquirer shall allow all Customers with Terminable Contracts for Microporous 

Battery Separators the right and option unilaterally to reopen and renegotiate or to 

tenninate their contracts, solely at the Customer's option, without penalty, 

forfeiture or other charge to the Customer, and consistent with the requirements 

of this Paragraph of the Order as if the Terminable Contract remained with 

Respondent. Respondent shall include in the Divestiture Agreement a 

requirement that all Customers with Tenninable Contracts for Microporous 

Battery Separators shall be third party beneficiaries of this provision of the 

Divestiture Agreement, with the right to enforce this provision independent of, 

and apart from, Respondent. 

Provided, however, that nothing in this Order will affect the rights and 

responsibilities under any Tenninable Contract for any Customer who fails to 

notify Respondent or the Acquirer, as the case may be, within the time allotted in 

this Paragraph. 

VII. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT: 

Respondent shall: 

1. Within fifteen (15) days after the date this Order becomes final and effective: 

(a) modify and amend the H&V Agreement in writing to tenninate and declare 

null and void, and (b) cease and desist from, directly or indirectly, or through any 

24 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 34 of 84

B. 

2. 

corporate or other device, implementing or enforcing, the covenant not to 

compete set forth in Section 4 of the H& V Agreement, and all related terms and 

definitions, as that covenant applies to North America and to actual and potential 

customers within North America. 

Within thirty (30) days after the date this Order becomes final and effective, file 

with the Commission the written amendment to the H& V Agreement 

(" Amendment") that complies with the requirements of Paragraph VIlA. I., it 

being understood that nothing in the H& V Agreement, currently or as amended in 

the future, or the Amendment shall be construed to reduce any obligations of the 

Respondent under this Order. The Amendment shall be deemed incorporated into 

this Order, and any failure by Respondent to comply with any term of such 

Amendment shall constitute a failure to comply with this Order. The Amendment 

shall not be modified, directly or indirectly, without the prior approval of the 

Commission. 

Respondent shall cease and desist from, directly, indirectly, or through any corporate or 

other device, in or affecting commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade 

Commission Act, inviting, entering into or attempting to enter into, organizing or 

attempting to organize, implementing or attempting to implement, continuing or 

attempting to continue, soliciting, or otherwise facilitating any combination, agreement, 

or understanding, either express or implied, with any Person currently engaged, or that 

might potentially become engaged, in the development, production, marketing or sale of 

any Battery Separator, to allocate or divide markets, customers, contracts, lines of 

commerce, or geographic territories in connection with Battery Separators, or otherwise 

to restrict the scope or level of competition related to Battery Separators. 

Provided, however, that it shall not, of itself, constitute a violation of this Paragraph for 

Respondent to enter into a bona fide and written joint venture agreement with any Person 

to manufacture, develop, market or sell a new Battery Separator, technology or service, 

or any material improvement to an existing Battery Separator, technology or service, in 

which both Respondent and the other Person contribute significant personnel, equipment, 

technology, investment capital or other resources, that prohibits such Person from selling 

products or services in competition with the joint venture in geographic markets in which 

the joint venture does business or competes for a reasonable period of time. Provided 

further, however, that Respondent shall, within ten (10) days after execution, file a true 

and correct copy of such joint ven.ture agreement with the Commission. 

VIII. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, for a period of two (2) years from the Effective 

Date of Divestiture, Respondent shall not advertise, market or sell any Battery Separator 

utilizing cross linked rubber anywhere in the world. 

25 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 35 of 84

IX. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, no later than ten (10) days from the date on 

which this Order becomes final and effective, Respondent shall provide a copy of this Order to 

each of Respondent's officers, employees, or agents having managerial responsibilities for any of 

Respondent's obligations under this Order. 

X. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Respondent shall notify the Commission at least 

thirty (30) days prior to: 

A. any proposed dissolution of Respondent; 

B. any proposed acquisition, merger or consolidation of Respondent; or 

C. any other change in the Respondent, including, but not limited to, assignment and the 

creation or dissolution of subsidiaries, if such change might affect compliance 

obligations arising out of the Order. 

XI. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT: 

A. Within thirty (30) days after the date this Order becomes final and effective and every 

thirty (30) days thereafter until the Effective Date of Divestiture, and thereafter every 

sixty (60) days until the Respondent has fully complied with the provisions of Paragraphs 

II., Ill., IV., V., and VI. of this Order, Respondent shall submit to the Commission (with 

simultaneous copies to the Monitor Trustee and Divestiture Trustee(s), as appropriate) 

verified written reports setting forth in detail the manner and form in which Respondent 

intends to comply, is complying, and has complied with the relevant provisions of this 

Order. 

B. 

C. 

Respondent shall include in its compliance reports, among other things required by the 

Commission, a description of all substantive contacts or negotiations for the divestiture 

required by this Order, the identity of all parties contacted, copies of all material written 

communications to and from such parties, and all reports and recommendations 

concerning the divestiture, the Effective Date of Divestiture, and a statement that the 

divestiture has been accomplished in the manner approved by the Commission. 

One (I) year from the date this Order becomes final and effective, and annually thereafter 

until expiration or termination of Respondent's obligations under the Order on the 

anniversary of the date this Order becomes final and effective, and at other times as the 

Commission may require, Respondent shall file verified written reports with the 

Commission setting forth in detail the manner and form in which it has complied and is 

26 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 36 of 84

complying with this Order. Respondent shall deliver a copy of each such report to the 

Monitor Trustee. 

XII. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, for purposes of determining or securing 

compliance with this Order, and subject to any legally recognized privilege, and upon written 

request and upon five (5) days notice to Respondent, Respondent shall, without restraint or 

interference, permit any duly authorized representative of the Commission: 

A. 

B. 

access, during business office hours of Respondent and in the presence of counsel, to all 

facilities and access to inspect and copy all books, ledgers, accounts, correspondence, 

memoranda and all other records and documents in the possession or under the control of 

Respondent related to any matter contained in this Order, which copying services shall be 

provided by Respondent at the request of the authorized representative(s) of the 

Commission and at the expense of the Respondent; and 

to interview officers, directors, or employees of Respondent, who may have counsel 

present, regarding such matters. 

XIII. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT this Order shall terminate twenty (20) years from 

the date this Order becomes final and effective. 

By the Commission. 

ISSUED: November 5, 2010 

SEAL: 

Donald S. Clark 

Secretary 

27 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 37 of 84

........ x i it 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 38 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

In the Matter of 

POLYPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

a corporation 

Docket No. 9327 

Opinion of the Commission 

By RAMIREZ, Commissioner, for a Unanimous Commission: 

I. INTRODUCTION) 

This case involves a consummated merger of two of the three North American 

firms that produce battery separators for flooded lead-acid batteries. 2 The battery 

separators at issue - membranes placed between the positive and negatively-charged 

plates in batteries to prevent electrical short circuits - are used in a multitude of products, 

ranging from floor scrubbers and golf carts to cars and backup telecommunications power 

systems. Battery separators for flooded lead-acid batteries are vital components of 

products that U.S. consumers use every day. 

The acquiring firm, Respondent Polypore International, Inc. ("Polypore" or 

"Respondent"), develops, manufactures, and sells a broad range of flooded lead-acid 

battery separators for various end-use applications through its DaraInic business unit. 

The acquired company, Microporous L.P. ("Microporous"), also manufactured flooded 

lead-acid battery separators, and, at the time of the acquisition, was an aggressive 

competitor of Daramic. 

In August 2007, Respondent's representatives began discussions with 

Microporous' owners about acquiring Microporous. Contemporaneous documents 

establish that Daramic at the time feared losing a large amount of business to 

Microporous, wanted to eliminate Microporous as a competitor, and believed that its 

acquisition of Micro porous would allow it to maintain market share and increase prices. 

On February 29,2008, Respondent acquired all of the outstanding stock of Microporous' 

I This opinion uses the following abbreviations for citations to the record: 

Initial Decision 

ALJ Findings of Fact 

Respondent's Appeal Brief 

Complaint Counsel's Answering Brief on Appeal 

Respondent's Reply Brief on Appeal 

Complaint Counsel's Exhibit 

Respondent's Exhibit 

Trial Transcript 

10 

IDF 

RAB 

CCAB 

RRB 

PX 

RX 

Tr. 

2 A flooded lead-acid battery is a battery containing an electrolyte liquid acid in which the 

positive and negative lead plates are suspended. IDF 20. Flooded lead-acid batteries, which are 

the focus of this case, are different than non-flooded lead-acid batteries, also known as gel or 

absorbed-glass-mat batteries, which use silica gel instead of liquid acid to interact with the 

positive and negative plates in the battery. IDF 22,36,83. 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 39 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

parent co rporation for approximately $76 milli on] The acq uircd Microporous business 

included a plant in Piney Flats, Tennesscc, a plant in Feistritz, Austria on the verge of 

commencing operations, and equipment for an additional production line (referred to as 

"a line in boxes"). 

Based on our de novo review of thc facts and law in this matter, we conclude that 

the acqu isition is reasonably likely to substantially lessen competition in three relevant 

markets: North Ameri can deep-cyc le; moti ve; and start er, lighting, and ignition ("SU " ) 

battery separators. We agree with Chie f Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell 

(the "AU ") that the appropriate remcdy is compl ete di vestiture of all of th e acquired 

Microporous assets, as well as certain other ancillary reli ef necessalY to restore 

competition that was lost through the acquisition. However, while we conc lude that 

Compla int Counsel properl y de fined a relevant market for uninterruptible power source 

("UPS") battelY separators in North Ameri ca, and the record supports the conclusion that 

Da ramic has a monopoly in that market, we find that Complaint Coun sel did not meet 

their burden to show that the acquisition has lessened, or is reasonably likely to 

substantially lessen, competition in the UPS separator market." 

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

A. THE PARTIES 

I. Polypore/Daramic 

Polypore, a Delaware corporation headquartered in No rth Carolina, manufactures 

microporGlIs membranes used in separation and filtration processes. Daramic, one of 

Pol ypore's four di visions, develops, manu fact urcs, and se lls vari ous types of flooded 

lead-acid battery separators both in th e United States and abroad. IDF 1-4. Prior to the 

acquisition of in the United States and five 100e"'11 

5 IDF 

At that time, Darami c produced polyethylene or " PE" separators for a ll four enduse applications all eged in the Complain t to constitute relevan t product markets: 

• Deep-cycle - batteries installed in products with a lower amperage draw over a 

longer peri od of time, such as go lf ca rts and floor scrubbers (lDF 19); 

J The Commission did 1101 become aware oflhc transac tion, which was 1101 subjec t to the prclllcrgcr 

notificati on requ irements of the Hart-Scoll-Rodino Anlitnlst Improvements Act of 1976, 15 U .S,c. § 18a, 

ulltil after the acqu isition had been consummated. 

·1 We adopl lhc AU 's lindings of fact to the ex tent not inconsistent with this opinion and make new factual 

findings based 0 11 our de IIO VO revicw of th e record. We prescnt our findings of fac t and conclusions of law 

throughout the opinion as appropriate to Ihe subjec t matter under disclission. 

5 Thcsc plants were located in Owensboro, Kentucky; Corydon, Indiana; Sclestat, France; 

Nordcrstadt, Gcnnany; Potenza, Italy; Prachinburi, Thailand; and Tianjin, China. IDF 38-39. 

2 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 40 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

• Motive power - batteries used in mobil e industrial products such as forklifts and 

mining equipment (I0F 25, 204); 

• UPS - " uninterruptibl e power source" products, such as backup stationaJY 

batteri es for computer and telecommunication systems (IOF 35, 235);6 and 

• SLl (starter, lighting, and ignition) - batteries used in automotive applications, 

including ca rs, trucks, buses, boats, and j et skis. IOF 32. 

For motive and UPS, Oarami c sold primaril y Oaramic CL (IOF 197, 41 I); and for 

SLI it sold primarily Oarami c HP. IOF 253-54, 427. Oarami c also produced 

Oarami c HO, a PE separator made with a liquid latex additive, whi ch was created 

primari ly for deep-cycle applications. IOF 41 , 373 , 472, 475. Oaramic also sold a 

product ca lled Oarak, a and used 

2. Microporous 

MicroporOllS, also a Delaware corporati on, was a sma ller battery separator 

company owned by a private equity firm, Industrial Growth Partners. IOF 5, 9. 

Microporous prev iously had done business under the name Amerace . IOF 8. Prior to the 

February 2008 acquisition, Microporous opera ted one plant in Piney Flats, Tennessee and 

was scheduled to begin operating a second plant in Feistritz, Austria in March 2008. 

IOF 43-44,778-79. Microporous also owned a line in boxes - unassemb led 

manufacturing equipment it had original ly ordered for the purpose of buildi ng a fourth 

prod uction line at the Piney Flats plant. IOF 773, 775. As of the date of trial, some o f 

the equipment for the line remained in boxes in Austria , whi le other pieces of the new 

line were at a semi-finished slage with a supplier, or in use in ex isting lines at Piney 

Flats. IOF 1269-70. 

Prior to the acquisition, Microporous' product line co nsisted of three products: 

Fl ex-Si l, a separator made of rubber, primarily for deep-cycle app lications; Ace-Sil, a 

hard rubber separator typically used in high-end industrial applica tions; and Ce liForce, a 

PE-bascd separator sold primarily for mot ive app li cat ions, which include~ 

Ace-Sil as an additi ve to . IOF 45 

Icroporous 

deeo,-cv'cl e and motive battery separator customers. Additi ona ll y, Mic ropo rous had 

begun deve loping and marketing a PE separator for use in SLI applications - the source 

of most of Daramic's PE batt ery sepa rator sales - and was in th e process of negotiating a 

(, Separators for industrial app lica tions, sllch as industrial moti ve and UPS products, arc 

sometimes collecti vely referred to as "indust rial" separators. lDF 23. 

7 SLl is by far the largest markct scgment, accoullting for almostlhrcc-quil rl crs of flooded lcadacid battcry scparator salcs in 2005. IDF 26 1. 

3 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 41 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

supply contract with Ex ide Technologies, Inc. ("Ex id e"), a large potential customer. 

IDF 429-36, 694-7 16. 

Microporous was also engaged in a research and deve lopment proj ect approved in 

early 2007 known as Proj ect LENO. !Dr 6 17. Proj ect LENO bega n as an effort to 

deve lop a separator to compete with Daramic's Darak separator. lOr 234, 6 18. The 

project later included research related to the development of a sepa rator for fl ooded leadacid UPS batteri es. IDF 618. Atthe time of the acquisition, the success of Project LENO 

was in doubt, and even if the research proved successful, a commerciall y qualificd 

product was at best several years away. McDonald, Tr. 3866-69, in camera; ID F 10 11-

14. 

B. OTHER BATTERY SEPARATOR FIRMS 

1. Entck 

Entek8 was th e on ly finn other than Darami c and Microporous that suppli ed 

fl ooded lead-acid battery sepa rators to North American customers at the time of the 

acquisition. Entek has one manufacturing fac ility in the United States (in Oregon) and 

one in the United Kingdom. IDF 47. Entek had sold separators fo r industrial 

applica ti ons in the I 990s, but had since ex ited th e industrial side of the business. 

!DF 392-93, 578, 1027, 1029. Entek's sa les at the 

2. Foreign Firms 

A number of suppli ers in India, Chin a, Indonesia and Korea produce fl ooded leadacid battery separators for loca l customers. IDF 444, 1064-78. Anpei and BFR arc 

Chinese manufacturers that produce SLI separators. lOr 340, 444, 1064, 1070. AmerSi l is a European manufacturer that operates a plant in Luxembou rg that produces 

polyv inyl chloride ("PVC") separators used in Europea n flooded lead-ac id motive 

batteries9 IDF 443 . No foreign firm exports flooded lead-acid battery separators to 

North Ameri ca, and none has any facilities in North Ameri ca. IDF 332-34, 338-40, 343-

50,449-51. 

8 EnId International LLC and its sister company [ nIck International lid. were owned and 

operated by Enlek Holding Company (collecti vely "Entck"). IDF 47. 

9 North Ameri can customers do not lise PVC separators for motive batteries due 10 pcrform<lncc 

disadvantages relative to PE scpnrators and because PVC separators may be associated with the release of 

unstable chlorine at certain temperatures. _ Thus, whi te EncrSys. a large moti ve customer, uses 

PVC separators fo r some applications in l:~s not approve PVC separators fo r use in North 

America, where the applications arc heavier dUly. IOF 203. 

4 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 42 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

C. CUSTOMERS 

The battery separators at issue in this case are sold to firms that manufacture 

flooded lead-acid batteries. Some customers are large companies with multinational 

operations, whil e others are relati vely small with operations only in the United States. 

Four of the largest customers are Exide, lCI, EnerSys, and East Penn Battery Company 

("East Penn"). IDF 49-59,65-66. 

Ex ide is one of the largest battery manufacturers in the world, with facilities in 

North Ameri ca, Europe and Asia . IDF 52, 53. Although it produces balleries for all four 

end-use applications, the majority of its business is in SLI balleries (for ca rs, trucks, 

motorcycl es, recrea tional vehicles, and boats) and deep-cycl e (for golf carts). IDF 54. 

Prior to the acquisition, Exide worked with Microporous to develop an SLI battery 

separator product and was in the process of negotiating a supply contract with 

Microporous. IDF 694-7 16. 

lCI is the largest automotive battery manufacturing company in the world. 

IDF 49. It is headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and has plants throughout the 

world. IDF 51. l CI primarily purchases SLI separators; it also buys some deep-cycle 

separators fo r golf cart batteries, which account for 2-3% of its total producti on. IDF 50. 

Prior to th e acquisition, l CI encouraged Microporous to develop an SLI separator to 

provide a competitive alternati ve to Daramic fo r automotive applications. IDF 650, 684-

89. In 2007, l CI qualifi ed the . entered 

into a supply contract with En IDF 690, 

111 5. 

EnerSys is the world 's largest manufacturer of industrial batteries, including both 

moti ve (for forklifts) and reserve power batteries (for UPS battery backup, 

tel ecommuni cations, and utiliti es). IDF 56. It has plants in th e United States, China and 

Europe. IDF 57. EnerSys encouraged Microporous to develop a separator product to 

provide a compet iti ve alternative to the Daramic products for UPS applications, and 

Microporous was in the process of attempting to do so at the time of the acquisition. 

IDF61 8. 

East Penn is a lead-acid battery and wire and cable manufacturing company 

headquartered in Pennsylvania. IDF 65. It has two U.S. plants and an assembly plant in 

China, and produces batteries for all fou r end uses. IDF 65-66. 

Other battery manufacturer customers include: Trojan Ballery Company, which 

manufactmes and se lls deep-cycle batteries primarily for golf carts and other deep-cycle 

applications; 10 Crown Battery Manufacturi ng Company, which makes batteri es for al l 

four applications (IDF 67-69); Douglas Battery Manufacturing Company, a family10 Trojan Battery has two plants, both III the United States. IDF 63. Trojan was Microporolls' largest 

customer, representing aboul43% orall Microporolls' sales. IDF 64 . Trojan is the largest go lfcart batlclY 

manufacturer in the world, with 2007 sales of approximatcly_ IDF 60, 6 1. 

5 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 43 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

owned company that produces certain types of deep-cycle and motive batteries II (lDF 

70-73); U.S. Battery Manufacturing Company, which has two U.S. plants and 

manufactures batteries primarily for deep-cycle applications (lDF 74-77); and Bulldog 

Battery Corporation, which has one U.S. plant and makes flooded-lead batteries for 

motive applications. IDF 78-80. 

III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

A. PLEADINGS 

On September 29,2008, the Commission issued a three-count complaint against 

Polypore. In Count I, the Complaint charged that Polypore's February 29,2008 

acquisition of Microporous may substantially lessen competition or tend to create a 

monopoly in relevant North American markets for deep-cycle, motive, SLI, and UPS 

battery separators in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18, and 

Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (the "FTC Act"), 15 U.S.C. § 45. 12 

Complaint ~~ 5, 14,48. Specifically, Count I alleged that the acquisition was a merger to 

monopoly in the North American deep-cycle and motive markets, and a merger to 

duopoly in the SLI lnarket. Id. ~~ 20-23, 27-29, 38. With respect to the UPS market, 

Count I alleged that competition was harmed because Microporous had developed a new 

separator that would compete with Polypore and had secured a contract with a major 

customer that was testing Microporous' new UPS product. Id. ~~ 24, 30, 31. Count I 

alleged further that testing, qualification, and reputation create significant barriers to 

entry in each of the relevant markets, and that the acquisition will cause and has caused 

higher prices and other anticompetitive effects in the relevant markets. Id. ~~ 32-38. 

Count II alleged that Polypore had entered into an unlawful joint marketing 

agreement with Hollingsworth & Vose ("H&V"), a firm that manufactures absorbedglass-mat separators, to forestall H&V's entry into the PE separator market, in violation 

of Section 5 of the FTC Act. Id. ~~ 47, 51. Count III charged that Daramic monopolized 

the alleged relevant markets, also in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, by executing 

contracts with large customers that would preclude or deter Microporous from competing 

effectively. Id. ~~ 39-40, 45-46. 

Polypore filed an answer on October 15,2008, admitting only that it had acquired 

Microporous and denying all of the substantive allegations in the Complaint. As an 

affirmative defense, Daramic alleged that the acquisition is a procompetitive response to 

market dynamics that will result in substantial merger-specific efficiencies that will 

outweigh any potential anticompetitive effects. Answer ~ 14. 

II In January 2010, EnerSys announced its purchase of certain Douglas assets. IDF 59. 

12 The Complaint alleged in the alternative that the transaction was unlawful in an "all PE" separator 

market in North America. Complaint ~~ 6, 14. However, Complaint Counsel did not pursue this theory 

and instead opposed Respondent's claim of an "all PE" market at trial. 

6 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 44 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

During the trial, which began on May 12,2009 and concluded on June 12,2009, 

the ALJ heard testimony from over thirty witnesses and admitted more than 2,000 

exhibits into evidence. The ALJ closed the hearing record on June 22, 2009. The parties 

submitted post-trial briefs and proposed findings of fact on July 17, 2009 and made their 

closing arguments on August 20, 2009. 13 

B. INITIAL DECISION 

The ALJ issued an Initial Decision e'ID") on February 22, 2010, holding that the 

acquisition was reasonably likely to substantially lessen competition in North American 

markets for deep-cycle, motive, UPS, and SLI separators, as charged in Count I. ID at 7, 

213-24. In particular, the ALJ found that the relevant markets were the North American 

markets for deep-cycle, motive, UPS, and SLI battery separators, basing his decision on 

the fact that separators are manufactured and designed according to end use and sellers 

can set prices according to a separator's end use and customer location. The ALJ found 

further that, at the time of the acquisition, Microporous was Daramic' s only competitor in 

the deep-cycle and motive markets, and one of Daramic's two competitors in the SLI 

market. The transaction was therefore a presumptively unlawful merger to monopoly in 

the deep-cycle and motive markets, and a presumptively unlawful merger to duopoly in 

the SLI market. ID at 246-51, 253-59. In the UPS market, the ALJ determined that 

Microporous was developing a product to compete with Daramic for North American 

customers and was a "substantial factor" in the market. ID at 252-53, 258. Having found 

that Microporous was the only firm positioned to enter the UPS market, the ALJ 

concluded that the acquisition entrenched Daramic's existing UPS monopoly. ID at 259. 

The ALJ also found evidence of the procompetitive benefits of pre-acquisition 

competition between Microporous and Daramic, and evidence that the acquisition was 

motivated by anticompetitive intent and resulted in post-acquisition anticompetitive 

effects, which bolstered the presumption of reasonably likely anticompetitive effects in 

each of the four relevant markets. ID at 266,269. The ALJ also considered Daramic's 

rebuttal evidence concerning entry barriers, buyer power, efficiencies and Microporous' 

financial condition, but held that the evidence was not sufficient to overcome Complaint 

Counsel's strongprima/acie case. ID at 270-99. 

With respect to Count II, the ALJ held that the noncompete provisions in 

Daramic's joint marketing agreement with H&V constituted an unlawful horizontal 

market allocation agreement. ID at 319-22. 

As to Count III, the ALl concluded that Complaint Counsel failed to establish 

their claims of monopolization and attempted monopolization in any of the four relevant 

markets. Specifically, he found that Complaint Counsel did not prove that Daramic 

13 On October 15,2009, the AU reopened the trial record for the limited purpose of receiving 

evidence regarding Daramic's alleged decline in sales to Exide. On July 19,2010, after the AU 

had issued the Initial Decision, the Commission reopened the hearing record to accept into 

evidence declarations regarding Entck's cfforts to develop a deep-cycle separator. 

7 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 45 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

possessed monopol(, power or a dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power in 

the SLI market. ID at 305. The ALJ also found that while Complaint Counsel proved 

that Daramic had monopoly power in the deep-cycle, motive and UPS markets, they did 

not establish that Daramic engaged in exclusionary conduct in those markets. ID at 306-

16. The ALJ therefore dismissed Count III in its entirety. ID at 316. 

As a remedy for Count I, the ALJ ordered complete divestiture of all the acquired 

physical and intangible assets, along with ancillary relief to eliminate the anticompetitive 

effects of the acquisition. ID at 338-41. In connection with Count II, the ALJ ordered 

Daramic to terminate the noncompetition provisions of its marketing agreement with 

H&V, and to cease and desist from implementing or enforcing them. ID at 323-28. 

c. APPEAL 

Respondent timely filed a Notice of Appeal on March 10, 20 I 0 and a Revised 

Notice of Appeal on March 15, 20 10. Respondent challenges all of the ALJ's findings of 

fact and conclusions of law relating to Count I, including the remedy. Respondent also 

disputes those factual findings and legal conclusions related to whether Daramic had 

monopoly power or a dangerous probability of achieving or maintaining monopoly power 

in the North American deep-cycle, motive and UPS battery separator markets. 14 

Respondent did not appeal any portion of the Initial Decision related to Count II, and 

Complaint Counsel did not appeal the dismissal of Count III. The Commission heard 

oral argument on July 28, 20 10. 

Respondent makes four principal claims on appeal. It argues first that Complaint 

Counsel failed to prove that separators for deep-cycle, motive, SLI and UPS batteries 

constitute distinct and separate relevant product markets. RAB at 9-19. According to 

Respondent, at the time of the acquisition, Daramic competed in an "all PE market," 

while Microporous competed largely in a market for rubber separators that included only 

its Flex-Sil product. Respondent also argues that Complaint Counsel failed to prove that 

the relevant geographic market is North America, asserting instead that the proper 

geographic market is global. RAB at 19-24. 

Respondent also claims that even if Complaint Counsel had proven their alleged 

relevant product and geographic markets, they failed to prove actual or likely 

anticompetitive effects. According to Respondent, Complaint Counsel's case fails 

because Microporous was not a competitor in the SLI or UPS markets; Entek competes in 

the deep-cycle, motive and UPS markets; barriers to entry are low; and buyers are 

sophisticated and have substantial leverage. RAB at 4,25-28, 34,41-50. Finally, 

Respondent argues that the remedy, and in particular the portion of the order requiring 

divestiture of Micro porous' plant in Feistritz, Austria, is overbroad and punitive. RAB at 

50-58. 

14 Because the AU dismissed Count III, and Complaint Counsel did not appeal the dismissal, we review all 

of the factual findings and legal conclusion relevant to the ALl's decision on Count I, but do not review 

those factual findings or legal conclusions that were relevant solely to Count III. 

8 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 46 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

The Commission reviews the ALl's findings of facts and conclusions of law de 

novo, considering "such parts of the record as are cited or as may be necessary to resolve 

the issues presented." The Commission may "exercise all the power which it could have 

exercised if it had made the initial decision." 15 16 C.F.R. § 3.54. 

V. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 

Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits acquisitions "where in any line of 

commerce or in any activity affecting commerce in any section of the country, the effect 

of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or tend to create a 

monopoly." 15 U.S.C. § 18. As the statutory language suggests, Congress enacted 

Section 7 to curtail anticompetitive hann in its incipiency. See Chicago Bridge & Iron 

Co. v. FTC, 534 F.3d 410,423 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 

370 U.S. 294, 323 n.39 (1962». Section 7 prohibits acquisitions that create a reasonable 

probability of anticompetitive effects. Thus, while a Section 7 violation cannot rest on 

proof of the "mere possibility" of anticompetitive effects, Section 7 does not require that 

competitive harm be established with certainty. Id.; FTC v. H.J. Heinz Co., 246 F.3d 

708, 713 (D.C. Cir. 2001). Even in a consummated merger, the ultimate issue under 

Section 7 is whether anticompetitive effects are reasonably probable in the future, not 

whether such effects have occurred as of the time of trial. United States v. General 

Dynamics Corp., 415 U.S. 486, 505-06 (1974).16 

Merger enforcement is therefore concerned with preventing the unlawful 

acquisition, maintenance, and exercise of market power. U.S. DEPT. OF JUSTICE & FED. 

TRADE COMM'N, HORIZONTAL MERGER GUIDELINES § I (Aug. 19, 2010), available at 

http://www.ftc.~ov/os/20 1 0/08/ 1 00819hmg.pdf ("20 1 0 HORIZONTAL MERGER 

GUIDELINES"). 1 Mergers that enhance market power can enable the merged firm to 

15 The de novo standard of review is required by the Administrative Procedure Act, 

5 U.S.c. § 557(b), and the FTC Act, 15 U.S.c. § 45(b), (c), and applies to both findings of fact 

and inferences drawn from those facts. Realcomp /I, Ltd., No. 9320, at 15 n.ll (FTC Oct. 30, 

2009), available at http://www. ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9320/0911 02realcompopinion.pdf. 

16 While evidence of post-acquisition consumer harm can provide conclusive proof that post-acquisition 

consumer harm is reasonably probable, the absence of post-acquisition evidence of antieompetitive effects 

does not necessarily prove the converse. Because post-acquisition evidence may be manipulated by the 

parties, it may in certain circumstances have little evidentiary value. Chicago Bridge, 534 F.3d at 435; see 

also General Dynamics, 415 U.S. at 504-05 ("If a demonstration that no anticompetitive effects had 

occurred at the time of trial or of judgment constituted a permissible defense to a § 7 divestiture suit, 

violators could stave off such actions merely by refraining from aggressive or anticompetitive behavior 

when such a suit was threatened or pending."). Moreover, the fact that consumers have not suffered harm 

during the interval between the acquisition and trial "docs not mean that no substantial lessening will 

develop thereafter; the essential question remains whether the probability of such/utllre impact exists at the 

time of trial." General Dynamics, 415 U.S. at 505; Ash Grove Cement Co. v. FTC, 577 F.2d 1368, 1378-79 

(9th Cir. 1978); see also 2010 HORIZONTAL M ERG ER GUIDELINES § 2.1.1. 

17 The U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission issued revised Horizontal Merger 

Guidelines on August 19,2010. Although we rely on the 2010 Guidelines in this opinion, our substantive 

analysis in this case would be identical under the 1992 Horizontal Merger Guidelines. 

9 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 47 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

profitably alter its marketplace decisions to the detriment of consumers by, for example, 

raising prices, cutting output or reducing product quality or variety. Mergers that 

enhance market power can also diminish incentives for innovation. Id. In some 

instances, a merger can reduce the number of firms in a market to a level that increases 

the likelihood that firms will expressly or tacitly coordinate their actions. Id. In other 

instances, a merger may create the likelihood of both unilateral and coordinated effects 

with respect to price or nonprice aspects of competition. Id. 

Courts have traditionally analyzed Section 7 claims under a burden-shifting 

framework. See, e.g., Heinz, 246 F.3d at 715; United States v. Baker Hughes Inc., 

908 F.2d 981, 982-83 (D.C. Cir. 1990). Under this framework, Complaint Counsel can 

establish a presumption of liability by defining a relevant product and geographic market, 

and showing that the transaction will lead to undue concentration in the relevant market. 

Baker Hughes, 908 F.2d at 982-83. 

A plaintiff can bolster a prima facie case based on market structure with evidence 

showing that anticompetitive unilateral or coordinated effects are likely. Heinz, 

246 F.3d at 717. Documents created by the merging parties in the ordinary course of 

business are often highly probative of both industry conditions and the likely competitive 

effects of a merger. 2010 HORIZONTAL MERGER GUIDELINES § 2.2.1. Indeed, qualitative 

evidence regarding pre-acquisition competition between the merging parties can in some 

cases be sufficient to create a prima facie case even without quantitative evidence of 

changes in market concentration. See, e.g., Chicago Bridge & Iron Co., 138 F.T.C. 

1024, 1053 (2004) (noting that qualitative evidence on pre-acquisition competition may 

support the conclusions based on market structure and can provide an independent basis 

for a prima facie case under Section 7); 2010 HORIZONTAL MERGER GUIDELINES § 2.1.4. 

Evidence that sheds light on the strategic objectives of the merging parties is also 

probative of likely competitive effects. FTC v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., 

548 F.3d 1028, 1047 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (Tatel, J., concurring); 4A PHILLIP E. AREEDA & 

HERBERT HOVENKAMP, ANTITRUST LAW ~ 964, at 18-19 (3d ed. 2009); 2010 

HORIZONTAL MERGER GUIDELINES § 2.2.1. 

If the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of probable hann, the burden of 

production shifts to the defendant, who must produce evidence showing that the 

plaintiffs evidence paints an inaccurate picture of the merger's likely competitive effects. 

United States v. Marine Bancorporation, 418 U.S. 602, 631 (1974); Heinz, 246 F.3d at 

725. The stronger the plaintiffs primafacie case, the greater the defendant's burden of 

production on rebuttal. Heinz, 246 F.3d at 725; Baker Hughes, 908 F.2d at 991. A 

defendant can rely on a variety of types of evidence to meet its burden on rebuttal, 

including evidence that casts doubt on the significance or accuracy of the plaintiffs 

market share and concentration evidence, factors that indicate that collusion is 

improbable, and evidence of likely efficiencies. Baker Hughes, 908 F.2d at 985. If the 

defendant meets its burden, the burden of production shifts back to the plaintiff to 

produce additional evidence of competitive harm and merges with the ultimate burden of 

persuasion, which remains with the plaintiff at all times. Id. at 983. 

10 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 48 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDA CTED VERSION 

Both Complaint Counsel and Respondent developed their evidence and litigated 

this case by reference to a relevant market and this traditional burden-shifting framework. 

The ALJ relied on the same legal framework in the ID. We find that this framework 

illuminates the factual record and competitive issues in this case and therefore apply it in 

this opinion. As we have noted in prior cases, however, and as the courts have also 

recognized, this analytical approach "does not exhaust the possible ways to prove a § 7 

violation on the merits." Whole Foods, 548 F.3d at 1036; see also Evanston 

Northwestern Healthcare Corp., No. 9315, Comm 'n Op. at 86-88 (FTC Aug. 6, 2007), 

available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9315/0708060pinion.pdf; 2010 HORIZONTAL 

MERGER GUIDELINES § 4. Market definition is a predictive tool that is not always the 

best vehicle to establish proof of competitive harm and can in some cases obscure rather 

than expose the competitive effects of a merger. See Evanston Northwestern, Comm'n 

Op. at 86 ("The role of the market definition tool, however, is potentially much less 

important in merger cases in which the availability of natural experiments allows for 

direct observation of the effects of competition between the merging parties, as well as 

the absence of such competition."). In a consummated merger, post-acquisition evidence 

of actual anticompetitive harm may in some cases be sufficient to establish Section 7 

liability without separate proof of market definition. Evanston Northwestern, Concurring 

Op. of Comm'r Rosch at 8, available at http://ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9315/070806rosch.pdf. 

Accordingly, the legal framework for analyzing a Section 7 claim is and should be a 

flexible tool that enables the factfinder to credibly and efficiently organize evidence in a 

manner that sheds light on the likely competitive effects of a merger. 

VI. LIABILITY 

A. RELEVANT PRODUCT MARKETS 

The ALJ concluded that, prior to the acquisition, Daramic and Microporous 

competed in four distinct relevant product markets: deep-cycle, motive, UPS, and SLI 

battery separators. ID at 210. This determination was based on the fact that battery 

separators have different design and performance features that vary with the end use of 

the separator, and that, in most instances, separators manufactured for one type of battery 

are not reasonably interchangeable with separators for a different type of battery. ID at 

211. The ALJ also found that industry participants not only recognize battery separator 

markets based on end use but that separator manufacturers price that way. ID at 211-12. 

Respondent disputes these findings. According to Respondent, PE separators, 

which comprise most of Daramic's product line, are reasonably interchangeable with 

each other regardless of end use. Respondent also claims that Daramic's PE separators 

are not substitutes for, and do not compete with, Microporous' Flex-Sit product, a rubber 

separator used in deep-cycle batteries. RAB at 9-19. On that basis, Respondent argues 

that the proper relevant product markets are an "all PE" separator market and a market 

consisting only of Flex-Sil.18 ld. We disagree and affinn the ALJ's product market 

determinations. 

18 Respondent also argues that Microporous' Ace-Sil constitutes its own relevant market. Ace-Sil is a hard 

11 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 49 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

The factors that determine the contours of a relevant market are well known. The 

"boundaries of a product market are determined by the reasonable interchangeability of 

use or the cross-elasticity of demand between the product itself and substitutes for it." 

Brown Shoe, 370 U.S. at 325; see also United States v. E.1. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 

351 U.S. 377, 395 (1956). "Interchangeability of use and cross-elasticity of demand look 

to the availability of products that are similar in character or use to the product in 

question and the degree to which buyers are willing to substitute those similar products 

for the product." FTC v. Swedish Match N. Am., Inc., 131 F. Supp. 2d 151, 157 

(D.D.C.2000). 

As "evidentiary proxies for direct proof of substitutability" courts look at 

"practical indicia" of market boundaries, such as industry or public recognition of the 

market, the product's peculiar characteristics and uses, unique production facilities, 

distinct customers, distinct prices, sensitivity to price changes, and specialized vendors. 19 

Brown Shoe, 370 U.S. at 325; Rothery Storage & Van Co. v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 

792 F.2d 210, 218 (D.C. Cir. 1986). These observable market facts provide evidence of 

interchangeability and the cross-elasticity of demand. 

Under the Horizontal Merger Guidelines, a product market is defined by asking 

whether a hypothetical monopolist of the proposed product market could impose a small 

but significant and nontransitory increase in price ("SSNIP") without losing sufficient 

sales to render the price increase unprofitable. 2010 HORIZONTAL MERGER GUIDELINES 

§ 4.1.1; see also Whole Foods, 548 F.3d at 1038; Swedish Match, 131 F. Supp. 2d at 160-

61 & n.8. Where a seller "could profitably target a subset of customers for price 

increases," a relevant market can be based on a particular use or uses by groups of buyers 

of the product for which a hypothetical monopolist could profitably impose at least a 

"small but significant and nontransitory" increase in price. 2010 HORIZONTAL MERGER 

GUIDELINES § 4.1.4. A hypothetical monopolist is unlikely to be able to raise price to a 

targeted group where buyers can engage in arbitrage. Id. 

The record here supports relevant product markets based on the end use of 

separators. Manufacturers tailor separators along a variety of dimensions according to 

both the individual customer and the specific application or end use. IDF 92-98, 104, 

rubber battery separator that is typically used in vcry high-end stationary applications such as 

telecommunications, nuclear plants, and military products. IDF 45. The Complaint does not allege that thc 

transaction led to a substantial lessening of competition in any market where Ace-Sit separators are sold. 

We therefore reach no conclusion as to whether Ace-Sil constitutes a relevant product market. 

19 Although Respondent criticizes the AU's reliance on "46-year old Brown Shoe's 'practical indicia'" 

rather than quantitative evidence, courts continue to rely on these factors to define a relevant market. See. 

e.g., Whole Foods, 548 F.3d at 1033, 1044-45; FTC v. CCC Holdings IIlC., 605 F. Supp. 2d 26, 41-43 

(D.D.C. 2009); FTC v. Staples. Inc., 970 F. Supp. 1066, 1075, 1078 (O.D.C. 1997). The Commission and 

the DOJ also consider such evidence relevant and probative. 20 10 HORIZONTAL MERGER GUIDELINES 

§ 2.2; U.S. DEPT. OF JUSTICE & FED. TRADE COMM'N, COMMENTARY ON THE HORIZONTAL MERGER 

GUIDELINES 9 (Mar. 2006), available al 

http://www. fte.gov/os/2006/03/CommentaryonthcH orizontalMergerGuidel inesMarch2006. pdf ("I n the vast 

majority of cases, the Agencies largely rely on non-econometric evidence, obtained primarily from 

customers and from business documents. "). 

12 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 50 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

106-08, 110. Flooded lead-acid battery separators are differentiated by various physical 

characteristics, including their base material (e.g., polyethylene or rubber), additives to 

the base material, "rib spacing and profile," "backweb" thickness, overall thickness, 

border areas, and finishing (e.g., delivered in rolls or cut into smaller flat sheets).20 

IDF 85-86. The fact that two separators may have one characteristic in common, such as 

backweb thickness, does not mean that the separators can be substituted for one another 

in a particular application if the other features are different, such as the base material, 

additives to the base material, or profile. IDF 86-97. If a separator designed for one type 

of battery is used in a different type of battery, the battery's performance, including its 

life, would be adversely affected. See, e.g., Leister, Tr. 4022-24. Thus, based on design 

and functionality, a separator manufactured for a particular end use or customer is not 

reasonably interchangeable with other separators. 

We recognize that certain separator products, such as Daramic HD and CellForce, 

can be used in more than one type of battery. But that fact does not alter our conclusion. 

Daramic itself distinguishes between end-use separator markets and sets separator prices 

accordingly. For instance, it currently charges different prices for Daramic HD and 

CellForce (formerly a Microporous product) depending on the separator's end use. 

IDF 114-16; PX0395 at 40, in camera; Gilchrist, Tr. 458, in camera; Hauswald, 

Tr. 793-95, in camera. Daramic also tracks sales according to the end use of separators 

(as did Microporous). IDF 100-02. Moreover, because separators are tailored according 

to customer-specific designs, arbitrage is unlikely. IDF 85, 92, 117-18. Accordingly, as 

explained in detail below, deep-cycle, motive, UPS, and SLI separators constitute distinct 

relevant product markets. 

1. Deep-Cycle Market 

Deep-cycle batteries are used in products such as golf carts, floor scrubbers, and 

scissor lifts that require a low amperage draw over a long duration of time. IDF 19, 128. 

Deep-cycle batteries are typically discharged more deeply - to a lower state of 

discharge - than motive batteries and are designed to run at a lower amperage for a 

longer period of time than SLI batteries. IDF 130-31. 

Relative to other batteries, deep-cycle batteries have high antimony content in the 

lead alloy grid, which aids in their construction and enhances the capacity for cycles of 

charges and deep discharges. IDF 15, 132-37. If antimony migrates from the positive to 

the negative plate in the battery, "antimony poisoning" occurs, which causes the voltage 

of the battery to drop and can lead to conditions that shorten the battery's life. IDF 138-

39. The separator in a deep-cycle battery ties up the antimony in the electrolyte liquid, 

preventing the antimony from settling on the negative plate. IDF 15. 

20 Ribs are protrusions on the separator that help establish the physical spacing in the battery to ensure that 

there is an appropriate amount of acid between the plates. The shapes and sizes of the ribs make up part of 

the separator's profile. IDF 31. Backwcb thickness is measured between the ribs and acts to create a wall 

of insulation in the battery between the plates. 10 F ) 6. 

13 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 51 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

Rubber separators are the most effective in preventing the transfer of antimony 

between the lead plates and therefore in reducing antimony poisoning in deep-cycle 

batteries. IDF 140. Microporous' Flex-Sil is made of natural rubber. IDF 143. 

CellForce, also developed and sold by Microporous, is a PE-based separator with a 

rubber additive in the fonn of ground-up Ace-Sil. IDF 144, 148. Microporous sold both 

for deep-cycle batteries. As alternatives to the Microporous products, Daramic sold a 

rubber separator, Daramic DC, and later a blended PE-rubber product, Daramic HD, 

which includes rubber in the fonn of latex. IDF ]45-47,502,505-06. 

Pure PE separators that are used in motive, UPS, and SLI batteries are not viable 

substitutes for deep-cycle separators because they do not suppress antimony poisoning 

and do not perfonn as well in deep-cycle batteries as separators that are made of, or 

incorporate, rubber. IDF 150-55. Similarly, because of the differences in the batteries 

and the corresponding requirements for the separators used in those batteries, separators 

made for motive batteries and separators made for SLI batteries are not reasonably 

interchangeable with separators made for deep-cycle batteries. IDF 130, 132, 152-56. 

Prior to the acquisition, Daramic HD competed with Microporous' Flex-Sil 

separators. When Daramic HD was introduced in 2005 as a competitive alternative to 

Flex-Sil, deep-cycle customers initially used it in a limited way, but then expanded their 

use over time. IDF 512. U.S. Battery tested Daramic HD in 2005, for example, and 

"indicated a desire to switch four of its new product lines away from Flex-Sil to 

Daramic HD." IDF 480. U.S. Battery later increased its purchases of Daramic HD and 

extended its use to additional battery models. IDF 515. Similarly, Exide began 

switching from Flex-Sil to Daramic HD for its deep-cycle batteries in 2005 and later 

continued to convert additional batteries from Flex-Sil to Daramic HD. IDF 502, 513, 

518. Exide now uses both Flex-Sil and Daramic HD as substitutes in its most common 

golf cart battery, which makes up approximately 80% of Ex ide's deep-cycle sales. 

IDF 503. The record also shows that Microporous responded to competition from 

Daramic's deep-cycle separators by reducing prices. IDF 464, 470-71. Daramic HD 

constrained the price ofFlex-Sil. IDF 470-7]. Similarly, prior to the acquisition, U.S. 

Battery, Trojan Battery, and Exide successfully used the threat of switching to Daramic 

HD as leverage to avoid Flex-Sil price increases. IDF 470,521,523, 528-29. 

Certain customers, however, continue to prefer Flex-Sil over both Daramic HD 

and CellForce despite Flex-Sil's higher price, and Respondent points to this preference to 

support its claim that Flex-Sil occupies its own relevant market. We are not convinced, 

however. Preferences by some buyers for one product do not necessarily mean that the 

product comprises a separate relevant product market, particularly when differentiated 

products are involved. Substitution for the purpose of defining relevant Inarkets does not 

require complete switching between products in the same market. See United States v. 

Oracle, 331 F. Supp. 2d 1098, 113] (N.D. Cal. 2004); FTCv. Arch Coal, Inc., 329 F. 

Supp.2d 109, 122 (D.D.C. 2004). Furthermore, courts have not hesitated to assign 

14 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 52 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

products to the same market despite price differences when the products, in fact, 

constrained each other's price levels. 21 

The record also shows that deep-cycle battery manufacturers would not switch to 

pure PE products in response to a price increase. For instance, when Exide was unable to 

purchase Daramic HD due to a strike at Daramic' s Owensboro plant, Exide did not 

switch to a pure PE separator for its deep-cycle batteries, instead paying a price premium 

to purchase Flex-Sil as a substitute. 22 IDF 173. Daramic's Vice-President of Marketing 

and Sales, Sterling Tucker Roe, testified that despite price increase announcements, no 

deep-cycle customers have switched from products that contain rubber to pure PE 

separators. IDF 170-71. We therefore find that separators for deep-cycle batteries are a 

relevant product market. 

2. Motive Market 

Motive batteries are used primarily in industrial equipment such as forklifts. 

IDF 204. These batteries are typically operated for much longer periods than SLI 

batteries and have more rigorous mechanical and chemical requirements. IDF 196. 

Motive separators are designed to meet these more demanding performance standards. 

ld. The positive plates in motive batteries, for instance, are surrounded by thick 

insulation to prevent an electrical short. IDF 194. This means that motive battery 

separators typically have a thicker backweb than other separators. IDF 195. 

Requirelnents for electrical resistance are lower because of the typically low current 

densities for motive batteries. IDF 196. Because of motive batteries' distinctive 

characteristics, separators that are made for deep-cycle, UPS, SLI and other applications 

are not typically interchangeable with motive separators. 23 IDF 130, 193-96. 

Larry Axt, Vice President of Global Procurement at EnerSys, testified that when 

Daramic declared force majeure for motive separators in 2006, EnerSys established a 

team to search worldwide for an alternative source of supply, but was unable to find an 

alternative supplier anywhere in the world. Axt, Tr. 2216-18, in camera. The merging 

21 See, e.g., AD/SAT v. Associated Press, Inc., 181 F.3d 216, 228 (2d Cir. 1999) (holding that the price 

difference between one-hour delivery services for newspaper advertisements ($40) and overnight 

transmission services ($8) was insufficient to demonstrate the two services were in different markets). 

Even the cases cited by Respondent did not hold that products fall in different markets based on price 

differences alone; rather, the courts considered whether the price differences had implications for 

substitution and the cross-elasticity of demand. Thus, in United States v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 

866 F.2d 242, 246 (8th Cir. 1988), the court in dictlllll expressly stated that "generally a price differential, 

even a substantial one, is irrelevant for purposes of determining reasonable interchangeability." 

22 Respondent takes issue with this and other similar customer testimony, arguing it is unreliable. RAB at 

19. We disagree. The record contains credible customer testimony identifying specific actions that 

customers have taken to fill supply needs. See Oracle. 331 F. Supp. 2d at 1133 (finding testimony of 

defendant's witnesses credible because they testified about concrete and specific actions taken to meet 

customers' information processing needs). 

23 North American customers do not use PVC separators for motive batteries because they do not perform 

as well as PE separators and may be associated with the release of unstable chlorine. Thus, 

while EnerSys uses PVC separators for some applications in Europe, it does not use PVC separators in 

North America where the applications are heavier duty. IDF 203. 

15 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 53 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

parties' own documents also confirm that motive separators are a distinct market. See 

IDF 216-20. 

3. UPS Market 

UPS batteries provide reserve power for stationary products such as computer 

systems, telecommunications networks, and data centers. IDF 225-35. UPS batteries 

generate a higher current over a shorter period of time than classic reserve power 

batteries. They must be very dependable and generally last between 15 and 20 years. 

IDF 225. UPS batteries have thick plates and tend to be built with a clear case to allow 

inspection of the battery's acid level. IDF 226. Separators for UPS batteries are typically 

made of microporous PE but require lower residual oil content than separators for other 

flooded battery applications to reduce what is referred to as the "black scum" problem. 

IDF 227-29. Oil residue or "black scum" interferes with the maintenance of a UPS 

battery by obscuring the indicators of the acid level, making it harder to detect the 

formation of lead sulfate on the plates. IDF 228. Black scum can also interfere with a 

valve, causing the battery to overfill and spill acid when an automatic watering system is 

used. IDF 229. 

Daramic developed a separator, Daramic CL, with a patented type of oil, which 

Daramic calls "clean oil," that reduced the black scum problem. IDF 230. Other PE 

separators do not reduce black scum and are not well suited for UPS battery 

applications. 24 IDF 231-32. Accordingly, separators for UPS batteries are also a relevant 

product market. 

4. SLI Market 

SLI batteries are used in automobiles and other motorized vehicles. IDF 259-60. 

SLI separators have their own distinct characteristics, which enable SLI separators to 

perform optimally in motor vehicles, and distinguish SLI separators from other PE 

separators. SLI separators must have relatively low electrical resistance to permit the 

surge in current that is needed to start a car. IDF 249. Puncture resistance and 

mechanical strength are also particularly important because the battery fails if the 

separator is punctured during assembly of the vehicle. IDF 252. In addition, SLI 

separators, and hence the backweb, must be very thin. IDF 250-51. Because SLI 

separators are thin, they are produced with fewer raw materials and are typically priced 

lower than separators for other end uses.

25 Based on functionality and performance 

characteristics, separators lnade for other types of batteries are not reasonably 

interchangeable with separators made for SLI batteries. IDF 131-32, 195-96. Daramic 

24 Daramic's Darak separator, made from cross-linked phenolic rather than PE, contains no oil and might 

solve the black scum problem, but it is very stiff and very chemically stable with low electrical resistance. 

Darak is primarily used in gel, as opposed to flooded lead-acid batteries, and is significantly more costly 

than PE-based separators. IDF 41, 234. 

2S The average price of Daramic's SLI separators is $0.70 per square meter; Daramic HD separators for 

deep-cycle applications range in price from $).50 to $2.90 per square meter; and its motive power 

separators cost $) .90 to $3.00 per square meter. IDF 267, ) )4. 

16 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 54 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

and Microporous documents and testimony also segregate automotive separators as a 

distinct market segment. IDF 268-70. Separators for SLI batteries are therefore also a 

relevant product market. 

5. The Expert Evidence 

Complaint Counsel's expert, Dr. John Simpson, applied the hypothetical 

monopolist test to each market using a critical loss analysis. PX0033 at 6, 12-19, in 

camera. Dr. Simpson concluded that a hypothetical monopolist that supplied separators 

for each end use would lose less than 100/0 of its sales in response to a 5% price increase. 

Id. 

Respondent's expert, Dr. Henry Kahwaty, opined in tum that PE separators 

belong in a single relevant market because they are highly differentiated and can be 

tailored to work across applications. RX0945 at 035-38,049-53, in camera. He also 

concluded that separator manufacturers do not have sufficient information to set targeted 

prices based on end use. Id. at 053-56. Dr. Kahwaty also argued that Flex-Sil constitutes 

a separate relevant market because Flex-Sil has unique performance characteristics and is 

sold at a premium. Id. at 041-42. Dr. Kahwaty's application of the hypothetical 

monopolist test to a market consisting of Flex-Sil led him to find that the critical loss 

from a 5% price increase for Flex-Sil is 15.4%. Based largely on qualitative evidence 

regarding the preferences ofFlex-Sil's largest customers, Dr. Kahwaty concluded that a 

hypothetical monopolist could profitably raise the price of Flex-Sil by at least 5%. Id. at 

046. 

We do not find Dr. Kahwaty's opinions persuasive. As explained above, there is 

more than ample evidence that separator manufacturers can and do set separator prices 

according to end use. Dr. Kahwaty also failed adequately to consider the evidence 

regarding pre-acquisition competition between Daramic HD and Flex-Si1.26 While we 

agree with Dr. Kahwaty that Dr. Simpson's application of the hypothetical monopolist 

test to the deep-cycle market could in theory miss a separate relevant market for FlexSil,27 that did not occur here. Dr. Simpson carefully analyzed the qualitative evidence 

26 As Dr. Simpson pointed out, Dr. Kahwaty argued that a hypothetical finn that was the only supplier of 

Flex-Sil could profitably raise the price of Flex-Sil over existing prices by at least 5%, but does not explain 

why Microporous did not raise the price of Flex-Sil prior to the acquisition if it had the power to do so. 

PX2251 at 2-3, in camera. Dr. Kahwaty also stated that Flex-Sil appears to be priced below a profit 

maximizing level because its price is set by negotiations with customers, but he fails to explain how 

customers that allegedly have no competitive alternatives could extract lower prices through negotiations. 

RX0945 at 048, in camera. Elsewhere, Respondent emphasizes that Flex-Sit was priced above competitive 

levels before the acquisition and asserts that the AU defined an overly broad market by examining 

substitution patterns without adjustment for Flex-Sil's pre-existing market power. RRB at 33. However, 

for the purpose of evaluating the competitive effects of a merger between the producers of Flex-Sit and 

Daramic HD, evidence of pre-merger competition between those products suggests that customers could be 

harmed by the acquisition and warrants including both products in the same relevant market. 

27 In setting out the framework for his analysis, Dr. Simpson considered whether a hypothetical monopolist 

supplying deep-cycle separators to North American customers could profitably impose a SSNIP, but did 

not first consider whether a monopolist supplying Flex-Sil to North American customers could do the 

same. 

17 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 55 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

regarding pre-acquisition competition between Flex-Sil and Daramic HD and based on 

that evidence correctly concluded that Daramic HD was a meaningful competitive 

constraint on the price of Flex-Sil. PX0033 at 13. Moreover, even apart from 

Dr. Simpson's opinion, for the reasons discussed above, Complaint Counsel established 

that the proper relevant markets in this matter are based on the end use of battery 

separators. 

B. RELEV ANT GEOGRAPHIC MARKET 

The ALl defined a North American geographic market based on customer 

location. ID at 239-43. He found that separator manufacturers can and do set prices 

based on a customer's geographic location, and that, because separators are tailored to an 

individual customer's demand, a customer could not likely defeat a discriminatory price 

increase through arbitrage. IDF 271-79. 

Respondent argues that arbitrage would defeat any effort to exercise market 

power based on customer location and claims that the proper geographic market is global. 

RAB at 19-24. Respondent's expert also rejected the conclusion that sellers could price 

discriminate based on customer location. Analyzing the geographic market based on the 

location of suppliers, Dr. Kahwaty concluded that the relevant geographic market is 

global. RX0945 at 057-58, in camera. 

We review the evidence under the familiar standards from the case law and the 

Horizontal Merger Guidelines. The boundaries of the relevant geographic market, like 

the boundaries of the relevant product market, depend on reasonable interchangeability 

and cross-elasticity of demand. Brown Shoe, 370 U.S. at 336. A relevant geographic 

market defines the geographic area to which consumers "could practicably tum for 

alternative sources of the product." FTC v. Freeman Hasp., 69 F.3d 260, 268 

(8th Cir. 1995). Under the Horizontal Merger Guidelines, a relevant geographic market 

is the smallest region in which a hypothetical monopolist that was the only seller of the 

relevant product located within that region could profitably implement a "small but 

significant and non-transitory" increase in price. 2010 HORIZONTAL MERGER 

GUIDELINES § 4.2. Where suppliers can set prices based on customer location, and 

customers cannot avoid targeted price increases through arbitrage, suppliers may be able 

to exercise market power over customers located in a particular geographic region, even 

if a price increase to customers located in other geographic regions would be 

unprofitable. Id. at § 4.2.2. 

Applying these standards to this case, we find that the relevant geographic market 

is North America. Because battery separators are tailored to a particular customer and 

type of battery, and sold through individualized negotiations, separator suppliers set 

separator prices based in part on customer location. IDF 275-79. Moreover, because 

separators are differentiated along a variety of dimensions according to customer 

18 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 56 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

demand, a customer could not easily defeat a discriminatory price increase through 

arbitrage. 28 IDF 274. 

Additionally, while the evidence shows that North American suppliers export 

separators to other parts of the world, it is undisputed that North American battery 

manufacturers do not consider foreign supply a reasonable competitive alternative to 

local supply due primarily to cost and quality. Foreign supply increases the risk of 

supply chain disruption and entails greater freight, warehousing, inventory and other 

costs. It also decreases the likelihood of a timely response to quality or technical 

problems. IDF 286-91,312-14. With one exception, there is no evidence that any North 

American battery manufacturer has imported flooded lead-acid battery separators from 

outside North America. IDF 283-85, 311, 333-34, 346, 349-50, 352-53. The lone 

exception occurred in 2008 when EnerSys was forced to purchase separators from 

Daramic's plant in Feistritz due to a labor strike at Daramic's Owensboro, Kentucky 

plant. EnerSys estimated that importing separators from Europe increased its costs by 

approximately 20%. IDF 313. Other separator customers, as well as Daramic and 

Microporous, recognize the cost-based benefits of local supply. IDF 287-88, 290-300, 

303-09. All of this serves to confirm that North America is the relevant geographic 

market. 

C. MARKET PARTICIPANTS 

Market participants are firms that currently supply products in the relevant 

market, as well as finns not currently selling in the market that are likely to provide rapid 

and effective supply responses to the exercise of market power by current sellers without 

incurring significant sunk costs. 2010 HORIZONTt\L MERGER GUIDELINES § 5.1. Where a 

finn is actively attempting to sell its products to customers in the relevant market and 

those efforts impact the behavior of existing sellers, that firm may be treated as an actual 

competitor. United States v. EI Paso Natural Gas Co., 376 U.S. 651 (1964) (finding that 

a merger violated Section 7 where the acquired firm had made efforts to sell in the 

relevant market and those efforts, even though unsuccessful, had influenced the behavior 

of the acquiring finn in that market). 29 

28 Complaint Counsel established that Daramic and Entek currently charge different prices for separators in 

different geographic regions, which shows that suppliers can and do set prices according to customer 

location. That fact, along with the inability of customers to defeat a discriminatory price through arbitrage, 

supports the conclusion that the transaction could enhance Daramic's market power over North American 

customers, even if it did not have the same impact on customers located in other parts of the world. For 

similar reasons, we find the Elzinga-Hogarty test does not illuminate the competitive effects of this 

transaction because it considers competition based on supplier rather than customer location. See 

Kenneth G. Elzinga & Thomas F. Hogarty, The Problem o/Geographic Market Delineation in Antimerger 

Suits, 18 ANTITRUST BULLETIN 45 (1973); Kenneth G. Elzinga & Thomas F. Hogarty, The Problem 0/ 

Geographic Market Delineation Revisited: The Case oJCoal, 23 ANTITRUST BULLETIN 1 (1978). 

29 See also Marine BancOlp., 418 U.S. at 625 n.24 (noting that the unlawful merger in EI Paso had 

"removed not merely a potential, but rather an actual, competitor" because the acquired finn's marketing 

efforts relative to one of the acquiring finn's customers had caused the acquirer to make major price and 

other concessions); 4 PHILLIP E. AREEDA & HERBERT HOVENKAMP, ANTITRUST LAW~ 912a (3d ed. 2006) 

("The acquisition by an already dominant firm of a new or nascent rival can be just as anti competitive as a 

19 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 57 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

The ALl found that Oaramic and Microporous were the only firms participating 

in the deep-cycle separator market prior to the acquisition, with market shares of 

approximately 10% and 900/0 respectively. IOF 384-85. He also found them to be the 

sole participants in the motive market, respectively representing approximately 90% and 

10% of the market. IOF 410. In the SLI market the ALl concluded that Oaramic 

accounted for approximately 48% of the market, Entek had approximately 52%, and 

Microporous was actively bidding for SLI business. IOF 439; 10 at 259. Finally, he also 

determined that, while Oaramic had a 1000/0 share in the UPS market, Microporous was a 

"substantial factor" in that market. 10 at 258. We affirm the ALl's conclusions with 

respect to the deep-cycle, motive and SLI markets. However, we find that Complaint 

Counsel failed to prove that Microporous was a participant in the UPS market. 

1. Microporous Was a Participant in the North American SLI 

Market 

We agree that Microporous was a participant in the North American SLI market, 

seeking to challenge Oaramic and Entek's hold on the market. Not only was 

Microporous actively competing for SLI business, it had made meaningful progress 

towards supply arrangements with lCI and Exide, two of the largest automotive battery 

manufacturers in the world with significant manufacturing facilities in North America. 

IOF 49-55; ID at 258-59. It is also clear that Oaramic perceived Microporous as a 

competitive threat and reacted by reducing prices. IOF 820-21, 824-25, 849, 852. 

leI first approached Microporous about an SLI supply agreement in 2003, as part 

of leI's plan to generate more competition in the market. IOF 649-50. Oaramic 

responded by convincing leI to enter into a_ supply contract with the suggestion 

it would cut off supply in Europe if lei did not agree to a long-term commitment. 

IOF 663, 667, 677-78. At the same time, however, leI continued to work with 

Microporous to develop acceptable SLI separators and qualified the SLI separators in 

2007. IOF 684-90. 

Ouring this time, Microporous was also negotiating a supply agreement with 

Exide. IOF 710-16. In 2007, Microporous and Exide had entered into a memorandum of 

understanding ("MOU") in which Microporous represented it would supply substantial 

volumes of SLI separators to Exide beginning in 2010. IOF 697-700. Microporous sent 

separator samples to Exide for testing, exchanged drafts of a supply agreement with 

Exide, and continued to meet and consult with Exide regarding an SLI separator. 

IOF 707-09. The MOU expired at the end of 2007, and the parties renewed the 

agreement in February 2008. IOF 710. Melvin Gillespie, who was responsible for 

Exide's negotiations with Microporous, testified that when Exide renewed the MOU in 

February 2008, it planned to purchase SLI separators from Microporous beginning in 

lanuary 2010. Id Microporous and Exide were still engaged in discussions shortly 

before Oat'amic acquired Microporous in February 2008. IOF 711-16. 

merger to monopoly .... [a] firm that has submitted bids against the dominant firm but lost is clearly an 

'actual' competitor, perhaps even forcing the dominant firm to lower its bid in the face of a rival bidder."}. 

20 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 58 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

Respondent tries to downplay Microporous' dealings with these customers. It 

argues, for instance, that Microporous failed to produce an acceptable SLI product for 

JeI and that their discussions ended in 2007. RAB at 25-26. But, while JeI did reject 

Microporous' early run of separators, the record shows that JCI qualified the 

Microporous SLI product in 2007. IDF 640, 651, 684-90. Moreover, JeI's decision to 

enter into a long-term supply agreement with Entek rather than Microporous in the fall of 

2007 does not mean that Microporous was not an active participant in the SLI market. 

JeI's decision had little to do with Microporous' development or manufacturing 

capabilities and instead reflected JCI's concern that Daramic might acquire Microporous 

and that a trade secrets dispute between Daramic and Microporous3o could delay 

Microporous' installation of necessary capacity by the end of2008. IDF 691-93,734. 

Respondent also claims that Exide did not seriously pursue a supply relationship 

with Microporous. RAB at 26. Respondent notes that Exide did not renew the MOU 

until several weeks after the original had expired, and that the parties made no progress 

on a supply agreement in 2007. Respondent also points to a February 2008 email in 

which Steven McDonald, Microporous' Director of Sales and Marketing, expressed 

frustration with the pace of the negotiations with Exide. RAB at 27 (citing RX0285). 

However, Exide's Vice-President for Global Procurement testified that, in February 

2008, when Exide's MOU with Microporous was extended, "We had full intention that 

we were going to be buying Microporous separators in 2010." Gillespie, Tr. 2976; 

IDF 710. Moreover, we fail to see why Microporous' expression of frustration with the 

pace of negotiations with Exide suggests Microporous was not seriously competing for 

business in the SLI market. Indeed, the document suggests just the opposite. 

Finally, citing a November 2007 Board of Directors memorandum, Respondent 

contends the Microporous Board mandated a business strategy away from the production 

of SLI separators. 3 1 RAB at 27 (citing RX040 1). Here too, the weight of the evidence 

demonstrates otherwise. Both the former President and owners of Microporous testified 

that nothing in that Board document prevented Microporous from pursuing SLI 

opportunities, and that, absent the acquisition, Microporous intended to supply Exide. 

IDF 799-803; Trevathan, Tr. 3753. In fact, negotiations with Exide continued through 

February 2008, providing direct, contemporaneous evidence that Microporous did not 

regard pursuit of SLI business as foreclosed. IDF 710-16. 

30 The dispute concerned a PE manufacturing line Microporous had purchased from Jungfer, an Austrian 

company, in 1999. Under its contract with Jungfer, Microporous was prohibited from using Jungfer's trade 

secrets to sell PE separators in Europe. Daramic acquired Jungfer in 2001 and attcmpted to enforce the 

trade secrets clause against Microporous, to prevent Microporous from installing PE production lines in 

Europe. IOF 760-65. 

31 The memorandum, titled HMPLP Strategic Mandates," was from the Microporous Board of Directors to 

Microporous' President Mike Gilchrist. Describing the company's strategic objectives for 2008, the Board 

wrote that, H[ 0 ]ther than filling the 2nd line in Austria, the Board does not endorse a pure PE growth 

strategy competing head-to-head with larger competitors (i.e. Daramic, Entek). Some exceptions may be 

made to this ... but these and any other exceptions must be approved by Board on a case-by-case basis." 

RX0401. 

21 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 59 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

There is also no question that Daramic perceived Microporous as a serious 

competitive threat in the SLI market. As early as January 2004, Daramic's head of 

worldwide sales, Mr. Roe, alerted the sales team that JCI might soon be pursuing 

automotive opportunities and that it had "become critical that we assess the true sales 

situation of [Microporous'] Cell-Force product." IDF 681 (quoting PX0244; Roe, 

Tr. 1248-51). By 2007, Daramic believed that Microporous was a serious competitive 

threat and that it had the potential to capture as much as 20 to 25 msm of Daramic's 

business in 2009 and an even larger share in 2010. IDF 807. Responding to a request 

concerning Daramic's 2008 budget and long range plans, Mr. Roe stated that "2008 will 

be the most challenging year ever faced by Daramic," that Daramic was "beginning to 

feel the real effects" of price competition and Daramic's past performance issues; and 

that, "unlike prior years, we have a true legitimate big competitor enteriny the market 

[Microporous] and for sure they will capture volume whatever it takes.,,3 IDF 435 

(citing PX0482 at 2); IDF 809 (quoting PX0238 at 1; PX0922 at 362-63, in camera; Roe, 

Tr. 1302-03). Collectively, this evidence demonstrates that Microporous was a 

participant and actual competitor in the North American SLI separator market. 

2. Complaint Counsel Failed to Prove That Microporous Was a 

Participant in the UPS Separator Market 

In 2007, Microporous began developing a PE separator to compete with 

Daramic's Darak product, a non-PE separator made in Germany, as part ofa research 

effort known as Project LENO. 33 IDF 244. Based on the status of Project LENO at the 

time of the acquisition, the ALJ concluded that Microporous was a potential competitor 

"poised" to enter the North American UPS separator market and was a "substantial 

factor" in that market. ID at 258-59. 

Respondent disputes this, claiming that Microporous' research effort was 

unsuccessful and failed to lead to a commercially viable product. RAB at 27-28. 

Respondent also argues that Project LEND focused on developing separators for gel 

batteries primarily for European customers. ld. Thus, even if successful, the research 

would have had no impact on a North American market for flooded lead-acid UPS 

battery separators. ld Complaint Counsel counter by arguing that Project LENO 

included the development of a "white PE" separator for flooded lead-acid UPS batteries, 

and that Microporous was testing a UPS product it expected would generate substantial 

revenues as early as 2008. CCAB at 8, 20-21. 

We find that the evidence is not sufficient to prove that Microporous was a 

participant in the UPS battery separator market. Unlike in the SLI market, Microporous 

had not developed a cOlrunercially viable separator to offer North American UPS 

customers, nor had any customer qualified or come close to qualifying a Microporous 

UPS separator. There is also no indication that Daramic perceived Microporous as a 

32 Likewise, there is evidence that Entek also considered Microporous to be a competitive threat in the SLI 

market. IDF 436; Weerts, Tr. 4517, in camera; PX1832 at 26-27, in camera. 

33 Respondent maintains Darak has never been sold for use in flooded lead acid batteries in North America. 

RAB at 28. 

22 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 60 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

competitive threat in the UPS market, or that it reacted by competing more aggressively 

in the UPS market. In addition, while Project LENO did evolve to include research 

related to the development of a white PE separator for UPS batteries, the evidence 

suggests that the success of Project LENO was in doubt. The ALJ relied primarily on the 

testimony of Microporous' Director of Research & Development, George Brilmyer, to 

find otherwise. Based on Mr. Brilmyer's testimony, the ALJ concluded that the 

Microporous tealn believed it had found a solution to the "black SCllIn" problem and that 

EnerSys planned to switch to the Microporous white PE product for its flooded lead-acid 

UPS batteries when it was qualified. IDF 622-24. The ALJ determined that, with Project 

LENO, Microporous "would likely have been in the [UPS separator] market within one 

year without the additional expenditure of sunk costs of entry." IDF 420. However, 

Mr. Brilmyer had left the merged company by August 2008 and testified he did not know 

the current status of the EnerSys tests on the white PE separator. Brilmyer, Tr. 1857. He 

also acknowledged that testing often takes years, the industry had been seeking a solution 

to the black scum problem for a long time, and Daramic was still working on a possible 

formulation when he left the company in August 2008. ld. at 1847,1887,1908. 

Moreover, Mr. McDonald, Microporous' Director of Sales, testified that when samples of 

a white PE product were provided to EnerSys in the summer of2007, the testing ran into 

problems and could not be conducted in actual batteries. McDonald, Tr. 3866-68, in 

camera. Mr. McDonald also testified that an additional sample was provided to EnerSys 

in July 2008, but his understanding of the status of the project at the time of trial was that 

there is "no advantage with the white PE versus the PE they are already purchasing from 

Daramic." McDonald, Tr. 3869, in camera. 

Considering the record as a whole, and in light of the evidence regarding entry 

barriers in this industry discussed below, we conclude that the evidence does not support 

the ALJ's conclusion that Microporous was a participant in the North American UPS 

market. 

3. Entek Was Not a Participant In Either the Motive or DeepCycle Market 

Of the four relevant markets, the ALJ concluded that Entek was a participant only 

in the SLI market. IDF 382-83, 392, 403, 421, 1027-30. Specifically, the ALJ found that 

Entek was committed to an SLI-only strategy, and that its past refusals and disinterest in 

response to customer invitations to supply non-SLI separators showed it did not intend to 

participate outside the SLI separator market. IDF 378-81, 394-98, 421, 1029-30. 

Respondent initially argued that Entek was an uncommitted entrant in the deepcycle and motive markets because it had previously sold separators for deep-cycle and 

industrial applications and could quickly shift supply to these applications in response to 

a price increase. RAB at 5-6, 28. Respondent also maintained that Entek had substantial 

excess capacity at the time of the acquisition and was discussing sales of deep-cycle and 

industrial applications with EnerSys, Exide and JCI. ld. at 28. In connection with its 

Third Motion to Reopen the Hearing Record, Respondent purported to present new 

evidence showing that "a competitor of [Daramic], which Respondent believes to be 

Entek ... is providing separators for deep-cycle and motive applications to North 

23 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 61 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

American customers, in direct competition with Daramic." Brief in Support of Third 

Motion to Reopen at 1. Accordingly, Respondent now argues that Entek is an actual 

competitor in both the ITIotive and the deep-cycle markets and that the ALJ erroneously 

concluded that the acquisition resulted in mergers to monopoly in those two markets. 

Id. at 2. 

We disagree. There is no evidence that Entek is currently supplying separators 

for motive or deep-cycle batteries. Nor is there evidence suggesting a likelihood of 

timely entry by Entek in either market. Entek exited the motive market over ten years 

ago, deciding to focus on thin separators such as those used in SLI applications. 

IDF 1027, 1029. Prior to the acquisition, Entek declined numerous opportunities to reenter the motive market. 34 IDF 395, 397, 1032, 1034. Although Entek had excess 

capacity in 2008,35 and appears, at least initially, to have considered potential motive 

opportunities, the evidence does not show that Entek is likely to provide a rapid supply 

response. IDF 399. For example, while Entek responded to Exide's November 2008 

request for proposal to supply motive and UPS separators, Entek explicitly stated that 

Exide would have to pay for tooling and that it could not guarantee a competitive price. 

IDF 1035. These were important issues to Entek. IDF 1 035 (citing Gillespie, Tr. 3129-

30, in camera). At the time of trial in June 2009, Entek still had not run any material and 

did not know what the costs or pricing would be for industrial separators. IDF 1037; 

Weerts, Tr. 4509, 4527, in camera. Moreover, Exide estimated that testing separators for 

motive or stationary applications would take approximately two years. Gillespie, 

Tr. 2973-74. 

Entek also had discussions with EnerSys, but here too the evidence does not show 

that Entek is a participant in the motive market. EnerSys first approached Entek at an 

industry conference in May 2008 about potential production of motive separators. 

IDF 1041. While indicating initial interest at the conference, Entek failed to return a 

signed non-disclosure agreement, which was the prerequisite for further discussions, 

despite numerous follow-up e-mails and telephone calls from EnerSys. Id. Then, shortly 

before trial, Entek submitted an offer for approximately 1,000 square meters of one 

profile of industrial product where EnerSys required six msm of that profile. IDF 1042. 

EnerSys determined that Entek's profile would not work for its North American products, 

and it had no plans to order PE separators from Entek. IDF 1042-43. Moreover, even 

had the parties decided to proceed further, six to eight months of preliminary testing on 

pre-production samples would have been required, and production testing would have 

taken another two and a half years. IDF 1044. 

34 Likewise, when Crown Battery asked Entek if it could supply industrial PE separators during the 

Daramic Owensboro strike in August 2008, Entek could not do so because it lacked the proper tooling. 

IDF 394, 952. 

35 The record shows that Entek had substantial excess capacity in 2008. Much of that capacity was due to 

an expansion undertaken pursuant to a 2007 MOU under which Entek became JCl's exclusive supplier in 

North America and Europe. Weerts, Tr. 4472-74, in camera; RX013I, in camera. The expansion was 

aimed at SLI separators, not motive or deep-cycle products, and most of the excess capacity was at Entek's 

UK plant rather than its U.S. plant in Oregon. Weerts, Tr. 4458-59, in camera. 

24 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 62 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

The recent evidence submitted by Respondent does not show Entek to be any 

closer to participation in the motive market. Daramic 's CEO, Mr. Toth, stated that, in 

May 2010, he spoke with a JCI representati ve regarding "JC]'s need for battelY 

separators for industrial app li ca tions, including separators for go lf cart batteri es." 

Affi davit of Robert B. Toth, '12 (June 30, 20 I 0), in camera. The JCI representative 

apparently responded that "Entek was willin¥, to produce an industrial separator .. . and 

had, in fact produced industrial separators.")' Id. at 3. However, in a declaration 

submitted by Complai nt Coun sel, Robert Gruenstern, JCI's Executive Director of Product 

~tated that JCI does not manufacture motive . 

_. Declaration of Robert Gruenstern, ' 12 (July 12,20 

also l-Iall, Tr. 2665. 

Respondent also argues that Entek is a participant in the deep-cycle market, 

pointing to evidence that Entek has considered developing a deep-cyc le separator for 

JCI.J7 RAB at 28. Entek has discussed supplying separators to deep-cycle customers. 

Prior to the acquisition, Crown BattelY discussed purchasing a deep-cycle scparator from 

Entek and expected to test an Entek separator for its deep-cycle batteri es in 2009. 

IDF 1031; Balcerzak, Tr. 41 38-39. It appears from Respondent's recent affidavits that 

Entek recently provided samples to JCI and Superior BattelY fo r testi ng.)8 However, 

these discussions with customers are not sufficient to show that Entek is a participant in 

this market. More than two years after the acquisition, and despite evidence ofDaramic's 

post-acquisition price increases in th e deep-cycle market, there is nothing to suggest 

Entek has entered the deep-cycle market or even qualified a product. At best, the record 

shows that Entek is testi ng a product with JCI and Superior Battery, whi ch is not enough 

to show that Entek is a market participant. 

The evidence, in other words, does not show that Entek is in a position to provide 

a rap id and effective supply respon se to the exercise of market power by Daramic in the 

motive or deep-cycle markets. The AU therefore correctly concluded that Entek was not 

a participant in these markets, and the additional evidence that Respondent submitted on 

reopening does not persuade us ot herwise. 

36 The reference in Mr. Toth 's affidavit to "industrial sepa rators" is ambiguolls. Daramic has elsewhere 

used the tefm "industrial" to refe r to a broad range of batt cries - basically, all batteries other than SLI and 

othe r starter batteries. RX 1305 al 7. As a resu lt, it is unclear whethe r the phrase is intended to refe r to 

separators for motive bnttcrics. The oth er affidavits submitted by Respondent ~ all from Daralllic 

employees ~ clearly refcr only to golf can (i.e .. deep-cyclc) battc ry separators. See A ffidavit of Randy A. 

Hanscllll, ' 1' 13, 6 (Junc 29, 2010). ill call/era; Affidavit of Stcvc McDonald, '1 3 (Junc 28, 20 I 0); Affidavit 

of S. Tucker Roc, '1'1 4, 6 (Julle 30, 2010), ill camera. 

311 See supra notc 36. 

I supply agrecmcnt wi th 

IOF 1046. 

25 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 63 of 84

"~ 

,,,, 

"":11., 

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

D. REASONABLY LIKELY COMPETITIVE EFFECTS 

1. The Acquisition Is Presumptively Illegal in the North 

American Deep-Cycle, Motive, and SLI Markets 

The ALJ concluded that the acquisition was presumptively unlawful in all four 

relevant markets. In particular, the ALJ found that the merger created a monopoly in the 

deep-cycle and motive markets, where prior to the acquisition, Daramic and Microporous 

were the only two market participants. ID at 246-49, 251. The ALl also found that 

Daramic entrenched its monopoly position in the UPS market by acquiring the only firm 

"poised" to enter that market. ID at 259. In the SLI market, the ALJ concluded that 

Daramic acquired one of its two competitors, recreating the duopoly that existed before 

Microporous began to compete in that market. ID at 259. 

Respondent disputes the ALJ's findings on market definition and Entek's 

participation in the non-SLI markets, and challenges the ALJ's market concentration 

findings on those grounds. Respondent also claims that Complaint Counsel failed to 

make out a prima facie case with respect to the SLI market because Microporous did not 

have SLI sales at the time of the acquisition. Respondent asserts that Complaint Counsel 

cannot establish a prima facie case unless they show an increase in the numerical 

concentration data. RRB at 18. 

As explained above, we find that the ALl properly defined four relevant markets 

and concluded that Entek was a participant in only the North American SLI separator 

market. We also agree that the acquisition was presumptively unlawful in the North 

American deep-cycle, motive and SLI separator markets. However, we conclude that 

Complaint Counsel have not met their burden with respect to liability in the North 

American UPS market because, as discussed above, they have not proven that 

Microporous was a participant in that market. 39 

Daramic and Microporous were the only participants in the deep-cycle market, 

with market shares of approximately 900/0 and 10% respectively. IDF 384-385. The 

acquisition increased the HHI in the deep-cycle market by 1,891 points, resulting in an 

HHI of 10,000. IDF 384. Likewise, Daramic and Microporous were the sole participants 

in the motive market, with market shares of approximately 900/0 and 10% respectively. 

IDF 410. The merger raised the HHI in the motive market by 1,663 points, also resulting 

in an HHI of 10,000. Id. The concentration data in both the deep-cycle and motive 

markets is in itself more than sufficient to create a presumption of illegality in those 

markets.4o See Heinz, 246 F.3d at 716 (increase in HHI of 51 0 in a market with HHI of 

4,775 created a presumption "by a wide margin"); 2010 HORIZONTAL MERGER 

GUIDELINES § 5.3. 

39 We also find that the evidence regarding Project LENO is not sufficient to establish liability under a 

theory of potential competition. 

40 While we find that the evidence does not support Respondent's assertion that Entek was a participant in 

the deep-cycle or motive markets, our conclusion that the acquisition is presumptively unlawful in these 

markets would not differ with a merger to duopoly. 

26 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 64 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

At the time of the acquisition, Daramic and Entek were responsible for all sales in 

the North American SLI market. IDF 439. The market was highly concentrated, with an 

HHlof5,005. IDF 439; see Heinz, 246 F.3d at 716 (HHI of4,775 indicative ofa highly 

concentrated market); 2010 HORIZONTAL MERGER GUIDELINES § 5.3. Although 

Microporous had not yet made sales in the SLI market, it was actively competing for 

business and constraining Daramic's prices. IDF 820, 822, 826-28, 833, 849, 850-52. 

The acquisition eliminated the impact that Microporous had on competition in the market 

and returned the market to a duopoly controlled by the two long-time incumbents. This 

evidence is sufficient to create a presumption that the merger was also unlawful in the 

SLI market.41 See Chicago Bridge, 138 F.T.C. at 1053; Heinz, 246 F.3d at 717. 

2. There Is Also Evidence of Reasonably Likely Anticompetitive 

Effects in the Deep-Cycle, Motive and SLI Markets 

The ALJ also concluded that the evidence showed a reasonable likelihood of 

anticompetitive unilateral effects in all four markets and a reasonable likelihood of 

anticompetitive coordinated effects in the SLI market. We concur with the ALJ's 

findings with respect to the deep-cycle, motive and SLI markets. 

a. Pre-acquisition competition between Daramic 

and Microporous 

Daramic spent many years working to develop a battery separator that would 

perform effectively in deep-cycle applications. IDF 457. It introduced Daramic DC, its 

first commercial separator for deep-cycle batteries, in 2002, and an improved product, 

Daramic HD, in 2005. IDF 459, 476. The evidence shows that Daramic developed its 

deep-cycle products to compete with Microporous' Flex-Sil rubber separator. IDF 489-

90. 

Before the acquisition, competition between Daramic and Microporous in the 

deep-cycle market resulted in lower prices for customers. Donald Wallace, Executive 

41 In light of our conclusions below that barriers to entry into each of the relevant markets are significant, 

we find that liability in the SLI market could be premised in the alternative on the elimination of actual or 

perceived potential competition. Both doctrines apply to mergers that involve concentrated markets with 

few likely entrants. Marine Bancorp., 418 U.S. at 624-25, 630. Actual potential competition rests on the 

theory that the merger eliminated a firm that was on the verge of entering the market de novo or through a 

toehold acquisition. Id. at 633; accord Yamaha Motor Co. v. FTC, 657 F.2d 971, 977-78 (8th Cir. 1981); 

Mercantile Texas Corp. v. Board o/Governors, 638 F.2d 1255, 1265-70 (5th Cir. 1981). Perceived 

potential competition rests on thc theory that the very presence of one of the merging parties as a potential 

entrant constrained the exercise of market power by current sellers in the market. Marine Bancorp., 418 

U.S. at 624-25. The facts here support liability under both theories. Microporous was the only firm in a 

position to enter the concentrated North American SLI market and was already bidding for business. 

Daramic perceived Microporous as a competitive threat and reacted by offering more competitive terms to 

those customers it believed it could lose to Microporous. Accordingly, even if Microporous was not an 

actual competitor in the SLI market at the time of the acquisition, the acquisition was nevertheless 

unlawful. The Agencies analyze acquisitions of potential competitors under the standard horizontal merger 

framework. 2010 HORIZONTAL MERGER GUIDELINES § 5.1. 

27 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 65 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

Vice President of U.S. Battery, testified that after he told Microporous his company was 

buying deep-cycle separators from Daramic, Microporous offered a lower price for FlexSil. Wallace, Tr. 1927, 1945-46. Mr. McDonald, a Daramic sales manager and former 

Microporous employee, testified that Microporous had reduced its price in response to 

customer threats to switch to HD. McDonald, Tr. 3779, 3943. Trojan Battery, U.S. 

Battery, and Exide were each able to get a price reduction or avoid a price increase from 

Microporous by threatening to switch at least a portion of their deep-cycle business to 

Daramic BD. IDF 470, 520, 521, 525, 535. 

Pre-acquisition competition between Daramic and Microporous also lead to lower 

prices for customers in the motive market. Daramic's Vice-President for Sales and 

Marketing testified that he reduced prices on industrial separators in response to 

competing offers from Microporous. IDF 583; Roe, Tr. 1265; PX0409. In 2004, 

EnerSys was able to use a competing bid from Microporous to negotiate a price reduction 

from Daramic of approximately 140/0 for its North American motive business. IDF 593. 

The President of Bulldog Battery, Norman Benjamin, testified that after his company 

switched its motive business from Daramic to Microporous, Daramic tried to win the 

business back by offering a lower price. IDF 607; Benjamin, Tr. 3505, 3516. 

Microporous responded by reducing its price to close to the price Daramic had quoted. 

Benjamin, Tr. 3516-17. But where Daramic did not face competition from Microporous, 

it pushed for higher prices. In an internal Daramic email regarding Exide, a Daramic 

sales executive wrote to his colleague that Daramic should be prepared to push for a price 

premium, noting that "Since they can't go to Amerace [i.e., Microporous], we can 

negotiate a little tougher.,,42 IDF 600; PX0843 at 1. 

Microporous was also planning to expand its production capacity in both Europe 

and the United States. IDF 773-804. Daramic perceived this expansion as a threat in 

both the motive and SLI markets. PX0433 at 4; PX2242 at 1, in camera. In response, 

Daramic put together "the MP plan." IDF 820-23; Roe, Tr. 1292-94. Daramic identified· 

East Penn Battery, Crown Battery, and Douglas Battery as customers that were "At Risk 

via MP." PX0258; Roe, Tr. 1288-90. In the fall of 2007, Daramic offered these 

customers contracts that would freeze prices in 2009 and limited future price increases to 

a pre-set formula as part of its "strategy against Amerace." IDF 822; PX0255, in camera. 

b. Daramic's pre-acquisition intent 

Daramic's internal business documents, including the documents given to 

Polypore's Board of Directors shortly before it met to consider the acquisition, provide 

convincing evidence of Daramic's pre-acquisition anti competitive intent. In an effort to 

minimize the import of these documents, Respondent claims it acquired Microporous "as 

a means to diversify its product line, gain access to Microporous' rubber technology and 

enter the niche rubber market, as requested by customers." RAB at 3, 34 & n.23. While 

42 Despite the evidence of the benefits to customers of pre-acquisition competition between Daramic and 

Microporous, Respondent asserted at oral argument that certain customers supported the acquisition. 

Transcript of Oral Argument at 71-72. However, the record does not show pre-acquisition customer 

support for the merger, nor does the record show that, at the time of trial, any customers were better off as a 

result of the merger. 

28 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 66 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

Darami c was cert ainl y interested in acquiring Microporous' rubber technol ogy and 

increasi ng its sales to deep-cyc le battery customers, that does not contradict th e strong 

evidence of anti competiti ve in tent. 

Darami c's documents show it was motivated to acquire Microporous at least in 

part to eliminate a competiti ve threat in the moti ve and SLI markets. These documents 

also show that Daramic saw the acquisition as a profitable alternati ve to expanding its 

share in the deep-cycle market through continued innovation and competition with 

Microporous on price and qua li ty. 

Several years before th e acquisiti on, Daramic executi ves began to express their 

concerns about competition with Microporous and discuss an acq uisition as a de fensive 

strategy. IDF 759; PXOI67. Daramic 's head of sales sent a memorandum to Da ramic 's 

then-CEO, Fran k Nasisi, on May 13,2005, ex plaining the advantages and disadvantages 

of acquiring Microporous. PX0433 at 4; I-Iauswald, Tr. 638; Roe, Tr. 1192. Mr. Roe 

stated that if Daramic did not acq uire M icroporous, M icroporous "may continue (its 1 

plans for a second line resulting in either our loss of current customers or further 

reduction in our market pric ing, hence loss of margins." PX0433 at 4. 

Mr. Tot h took over as CEO of Polypore in July 2005 . [OF 754. Daramic's Vice 

President, Pierre I-Iallswald, helped him assess a Id. 

In a cover note on the Mr. I 

camera. 

executives were concerned 

about Microporolls' ex pansion plans and morc vigorolls competiti on in both the moti ve 

and SLlmarkets

4 3 

Daramic remained concerned about Microporous' expansion just prior to the 

acquisition. On October 24, 2007, Mr. I-I auswald reported to Polypore's Board on 

the known as 

On October 4, 2007, Michael Graff, Chairman of the Board, received an advance 

copy of the Project Titan October 24, 2007 Board presentation that included 

Mr. I-I allswald 's spea ker notes as part of an interim report on the proj ect. IDF 854. With 

the exception of the speaker notes and backup slides, the presentation to the Board on 

H PX0168 (September 21, 2005 emai l from Pierre Hauswald to Robe rt Toth, stating thaI "[Microporous] is 

a real threat for our busi ness, 1101 only in Ihe industrial market, but. later, in the automotive mn rkct. because 

there is no doubt that JCI and EXIDE wil l contac t thelll for a den l, when our contracts expirc."); PX0694 

(Octobcr 14,2005 cIl13il rrom Fr<1nk Nasisi to Picrrc J-Iauswa lc1 and Robcrt Toth, rcsponding to ncws that 

Microporous had startcd construction on a second production linc, staling "We Illust do evcrything possiblc 

to stop this process . Thc bottom linc is that [Mieroporous] can be anothcr Elltck: building plants to 

exclusively supply EncrSys, Je l, Enst Pcnn and so forlh."). 

29 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 67 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERS ION 

The Board presentation also inc luded a slide describil 

Shortly before the acq uisiti on closed on FebrualY 28, 2008, the 

nrclvi(lNl the Board wit h a status I on the "-"'~~~!... 

c. Daramic's post-acquisition prices 

ve 

and strengthens Complaint Coun sel's prill1afacie case. 

at camera. 

Resp'Dn,jerll IS correct nt Cou nsc l did not prove that a ll customers that 

received price increase announcements actually began to pay higher prices. the record 

does show that the ~~".!!!~ 

30 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 68 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONA LLY REDACTED VERSION 

enJallllll, 

contrast, in years II preceding the acqui sition, 

Microporous had onl y increased the price of Cell Force to Bulldog Battery by 

approximately 3%. ID F 613. When asked at trial whether he tri ed to move his business 

to a diffe rent suppli er in response to the pri ce increase, Mr. Benj amin testified that " th ere 

is no other supplier, so you're kind of stuck." IDF 6 14; Benj amin, Tr. 3526. 

Issue persuasive. 

This strong qualitative evidence of anticompetiti ve unilatera l effects in the deepcycle, motive, and SLimarkets corroborates Complaint Coun sel's already strong primo 

jiJCie case. 

3. Anticompctitive Coordinated Effects Are Likely in the 

SLI Market 

The AU found that Respondent failed to rebut th e strong presumption of li ke ly 

coordinated effects in a merger to duopoly in the SLimarket. 10 at 265. Respondent 

maintains that, because SLI separators are differentiated and sold through large 

individually-negotiated supply contracts, coordination is unli ke ly. RAB 39-40. 

In a market with hi gh barriers to entry, a merger to duopoly creates a presumption 

of anticompetitive coord inated effects. J-/einz, 246 F.3d at 724-25 (finding tha t th e 

elimination of a third rival would create a "durable du opoly," increasing both th e 

opportuni ty and incentive for the duopolists to coordinate to increase price); FTC II. PPC 

Indus. 798 F.2d 1500, 1503 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (notin g that "where ri vals are few, firms will 

be able to coordinate their behav ior either by overt collusion or implicit understanding, in 

order to restri ct output and achi eve profits above compet itive leve ls"). By eliminating 

Microporous as a third player in the SLimarket, the acquisition increased the li kelihood 

of anticompetitive coordinated effects. A defendant can defeat the presumption of likely 

coordination with evidence showing strucnlral barri ers to coordination in the market. 

FTC v. CCC J-/oldings, Inc., 605 F. Supp. 2d 26, 60 (DD.C. 2009). Respondent has not 

met that burden hcre. 

3 1 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 69 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

Respondent is correct that battery separators are differentiated products and, in 

many cases, sold through large negotiated contracts. Respondent is also correct that these 

factors make it more difficult for sellers to coordinate on price and increase the incentives 

for sellers to deviate from any coordinated pricing arrangement. But there is a strong 

presumption of coordination in a market with only two sellers, and the evidence 

regarding industry custom and practice supports that presumption here. 

Despite product differentiation, price levels and price increases are relatively 

transparent in the industry. Daramic announces price increases publicly. In 2005, after 

Daramic announced that it was increasing prices, Daramic's head of sales told his 

colleagues in an internal email that he had "GREAT NEWS ... [a]s you can see, Entek 

has followed our lead. Their increase for thinner (6 mil- 8 mil) backwebs is 4%-5% and 

the thicker is 7% -10%. I am sure NSG and [Microporous] will follow. We really should 

not be afraid to ask and get the 6% we announced." PX0235. When Daramic announced 

its 2009 price increases in the fall of 2008, it did so in a press release. PX0371. 

Moreover, Daramic's Vice-President, Mr. Hauswald, testified that the separator industry 

is small enough that sellers are typically able to acquire competitive information from 

customers in the course of negotiations. IDF 731-33; Hauswald, Tr. 629, 834-40, in 

camera. Based on both the presumption of coordination and the evidence regarding 

pricing transparency, we conclude that anticompetitive coordinated effects in the SLI 

market are likely. 44 

E. RESPONDENT'S REBUTTAL EVIDENCE 

While we conclude that Complaint Counsel have established a prima facie case of 

likely competitive harm in the North American deep-cycle, motive and SLI separator 

markets, Respondent can rebut Complaint Counsel's case with evidence that shows that 

competitive harm is unlikely. Heinz, 246 F.3d at 725. Respondent argues that entry and 

power buyers would counteract any potential anticompetitive effects from the acquisition. 

We affirm the ALJ's conclusion that Respondent did not satisfy its burden of 

production. 45 

44 Respondent argues that it has lost significant business from JCI and Exide to Entek since the acquisition, 

demonstrating vigorous competition in the SLI market. RAB at 39. We find otherwise. As an initial 

matter, JCI entered into a long-term supply agreement with Entek_ before the acquisition, even 

though the agreement was not effective until JeI's contract with ~ expired in December 2008. 

IDF 734, 736. And while Exide did move a portion of its business from Daramic to Entek since the 

acquisition, the evidence shows that Exide's long-term supply arrangement with Daramic expired, and 

Exide adopted a strategy of avoiding sole-source arrangements. IOF 744, 747. We do not agree that these 

events show coordination in the SLI market is unlikely post-acquisition. 

4S At trial, Respondent also argued that evidence of efficiencies and Microporous' financial condition were 

sufficient to rebut Complaint Counsel's prima/ade case. ID at 293-300. The ALJ rejected these 

arguments and Respondent has not raised these arguments in its appeal briefs. However, because 

Respondent's Notice of Appeal challenges all portions of the 10 relating to Count I, we have reviewed the 

evidence in support of these defenses and agree with the AU that Respondent's evidence regarding 

efficiencies and Microporous' financial condition at the time of the acquisition is not sufficient to show that 

competitive harm from the acquisition is unlikely. 

32 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 70 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

1. Entry 

Even mergers in concentrated markets are unlikely to harm competition where 

entry is likely, timely and sufficient to alleviate the otherwise likely anticompetitive 

effects. FTCv. Cardinal Health, Inc., 12 F. Supp. 2d 34,55 (D.D.C. 1998); 2010 

HORIZONTAL MERGER GUIDELINES § 9. For entry to constrain the likely harm from a 

merger that enhances market power, the scale must be large enough to constrain prices 

post-acquisition. Chicago Bridge, 534 F.3d at 429. Respondent's burden is to produce 

evidence sufficient to show that the likelihood of entry "reaches a threshold ranging from 

'reasonable probability' to 'certainty. '" Jd. at 430 n.l O. The history of entry in the 

relevant markets "is a central factor in assessing the likelihood of entry in the future." 

Cardinal Health, 12 F. Supp. 2d at 56; 2010 HORIZONTAL MERGER GUIDELINES § 9. 

The ALl concluded that entry into the relevant markets is slow and difficult and 

that neither Asian manufacturers nor Entek were likely to enter the markets and restore 

lost competition. ID at 283-88. Respondent contends that entry barriers are low and that 

evidence of likely entry from Asian suppliers and Entek is sufficient to rebut Complaint 

Counsel's primafacie case. RAB at 41-50. 

We find that the record does not support Respondent's arguments. In fact, 

Daramic itself acknowledges the existence of substantial barriers to entry. IDF 928-30. 

Among other barriers, a de novo entrant would face large capital requirements to build a 

separator plant of sufficient size and scale to operate profitably and service large 

customers. IDF 924-25, 928-29. An entrant would also have to possess or develop the 

specialized technological expertise and know-how needed to build and operate a 

production line. IDF 935-63. Reputation also creates barriers to entry. IDF 970-7 I; 

PX0265 at 11. Patent protections and other proprietary information can create additional 

barriers. IDF 932-34. 

Overcoming these entry barriers is a slow process. Design, installation and 

testing of a PE separator line can take eighteen to twenty months. IDF 974-75, 988-90, 

992. Product testing and qualification with customers can last from 18 to 24 months for 

deep-cycle separators (lDF 1017-24); two to three years for motive and UPS separators 

(lDF 1011-13); and up to 21 months for SLI separators. IDF 1025. Since many of the 

steps towards entry must happen sequentially, entry takes several years. IDF 923. The 

history of entry into the North American separator markets supports our conclusion that 

entry barriers are substantial. There is no evidence that any finns other than Daramic and 

Microporous have entered the relevant markets in the past ten years. Daramic's history 

of entry in the deep-cycle market, and Microporous' history with respect to CellForce, 

and its motive and SLI separators, show that entry into the relevant markets is slow and 

costly, and developing a products reputation for reliability with customers is difficult, 

even for manufacturers with expelience in other separator markets. IDF 457-69, 649-51, 

684-90, 993-95. 

The barriers are even greater for Asian finns. As discussed above, Asian supply 

is not a competitive alternative for North American customers due to transportation costs, 

import and export duties, and the increased costs and risks with respect to supply chain 

33 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 71 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

management and wa rehousing. IDF 286-9 1,3 I 2- I 9,349, 1060. Exc luding freight , 

import duties, and value-added tax, the pri ces that BFR quoted to EnerSys were more 

than 10% hi gher than Daramic 's prices. IDF 34 1, 1096. When transportation costs and 

taxes are included, the differential is approximately 20%. IDF 34 I. Mr. Kung, a 

principal of Chinese SLI suppli er BFR, testified that BFR cannot compete in North 

America because its prices are not competiti ve and it does not have enough Englishspeaking staff or capacity to supply Nort h Ameri can customers. IOF 32 1,336. 

Accordingl y, BFR has no intention ofselJing PE separators in North America. IDF 343. 

Asian manufactllrers also face hi gher production costs than North American 

manufacturers and have a relati ve ly poor reputati on for quality and reliability among 

North American battelY manufacturers. IOF 1061, 1065-66, 1075-77, 1082, 1088-89. 

For exampl e, EnerSys does not perce ive Chinese SLI manufacturers BFR and Anpei to 

be comparable to Microporous in terms of quality or rel iability. IOF I 101. 

There is also little support for Respondent's contention that battery manufacturers 

r Asian into the North American market. RAB at 45-50. 

I at one 

sponsoring de velopment of a PE separator from Alpha Beta, a Chinese manufacturer that 

provides EnerSys with absorbed-glass-mat separators, but stopped pl ans to move forward 

because Alpha Beta lacked the ex pertise tojustify a large capital investment. IOF 11 24. 

Ex ide and East Penn BattelY each test ified that they did not in tend to sponsor entry by 

any manufacturer, Asian or otherwise. IOF I 125-26. Nor does the evidence show that 

Asian firms could enter more qui ckly because their products have already been approved 

and qualified by North Ame rican customers.'" While some battery manufacturers have 

performed preliminary testing on material prod uced by certain Asian manufacturers, the 

results have generally not been encouraging, and none of the Asian manufacturers has yet 

been qualifi ed to provide separators in any of the relevant product markets. lDF I 102, 

1061, 1081-83, 1095, 1102. 

Significantly, no Asian firm has entered the North American separator market, 

despite Daramic's post-acquisition price increases. IOF 897-9 I 6. In fact, there is no 

evidence that any Asian separator manufacturer has eve r sold separators to North 

American customers. IDF 346, 349. When Respondent's counsel was asked at oral 

argument about Asian imports, he stated that there had been " interaction" between North 

American customers and Asian suppli ers, but he could not point to any actual sales or 

imports into North America, or even the likely prospect of such sa les. Ora l Argument 

Tr. at 33-35. Interac tion between North American customers and Asian finns is not 

sufficient to show a likelihood of elltry. As we ex pl ain ed in Chicago Bridge, mere 

.If> Respondent ove rsla tes th e evidence support ing this argument. RAB at 43. The record shows that in 

2003, East Penn tested and app roved a scpamtor from Anpc i, a Chinese manufacturer, fo r a small engine 

battery, such as those used in lawn mowcrs, though it neve r purchased any of the separators. IDF 11 08; 

Leister, Tr. 3992, 4032-33; RX0079. Oth crwise, the evidence Respondent cites shows onl y that North 

Ameri can customers have conducted the first steps of th e testing and qua lifica tion process. IOF 100 1, 

1004-05. 

34 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 72 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

evidence of customers inquiring about producers' willingness to supply products is not 

sufficient to establish an entry defense. 138 F.T.C. at 1102. 

We also find that the evidence does not support Respondent's argUlnent that entry 

by Entek is likely to alleviate the anticompetitive effects of Daramic's merger to 

monopoly in the deep-cycle and motive markets. Entek exited the motive market years 

ago and has since shown little interest in pursuing opportunities in that market. IDF 398, 

1029. To the contrary, it has committed itself to an SLI strategy. Id. Entek has 

acknowledged in post-acquisition commercial communications that it is unlikely to be 

price-competitive in other markets. IDF 1035; Gillespie, Tr. 3040, in camera; Weerts, 

Tr. 4509, in camera. An Entek representative testified that Entek would face costly 

technical difficulties producing the thicker non-SLI separators. IDF 1030; Weerts, 

Tr. 4515-16, in camera. These price and cost considerations suggest not only that Entek 

is unlikely to enter the motive market, but that if it did, entry would not be sufficient to 

constrain Daramic's pricing unless or until these disadvantages were overcome. 

Moreover, Entek would also face the delays associated with qualification, which, for 

motive separators, are particularly lengthy. IDF 402, 1011-13; Gillespie, Tr. 3038-39, in 

camera. 

Additionally, while recent evidence suggests that Entek is taking some steps to 

enter the deep-cycle market, there is no evidence that Entek's separators have been 

qualified. Qualification in deep-cycle markets typically takes between eighteen and 

twenty-four months. IDF 1018-24. Even if we assume that Entek's deep-cycle products 

will be qualified and that Entek eventually will enter the market, Daramic's own history 

of entry in the deep-cycle market suggests it will take several years before Entek's 

participation in the market would restore lost competition. IDF 993. Thus, evidence of 

Entek's recent steps towards entering the deep-cycle market is not sufficient to show that 

a merger to monopoly in the deep-cycle market is not likely to cause substantial 

competitive harm. 

2. Power Buyers 

Respondent argues that large buyers like lCI, Exide, EnerSys, and Trojan Battery 

will prevent the exercise of market power that Daramic gained through the acquisition. 

RAB at 4-5. However, even large and sophisticated customers cannot alleviate the 

anticompetitive effects of a merger if the customers have no competitive options. Buyers 

now face a monopoly in the deep-cycle and motive markets. lCI, Exide, EnerSys, and 

Trojan Battery each testified that they have no alternatives to Daramic in these markets. 

IDF 206, 210, 555, 574, 579; Hall, Tr. 2703-07. Although Respondent argues that large 

customers have demonstrated their past ability to constrain prices, the evidence shows 

that buyers previously negotiated lower prices by relying on the competition between 

Daramic and Microporous that no longer exists. IDF 523, 562, 529, 593-95. The 

evidence shows these customers now lack any leverage with Daramic and are paying 

higher prices post-acquisition. IDF 555-57, 574. The evidence also fails to show that 

these putative power buyers have leverage in the SLI market. The post-acquisition 

supply proposals to Exide are less favorable on pricing than what Exide was paying pre35 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 73 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

acquisition. 47 IDF 903-05. Overall, Exide's analysis shows that it will "pay more, in the 

millions of dollars more" for its separator supply in 2010 than it would have had to pay in 

the pre-acquisition environment. Gillespie, Tr. 3049-50, in camera. 

While some customers have continued to bargain with Daramic for lower prices, a 

customer's struggle to avoid immediately acceding to a price increase does not render it a 

power buyer. The mere failure to acquiesce silently is hardly equivalent to a successful 

constraint of market power. Here, buyers typically responded to announcements of price 

increases by asking Daramic to justify the price increase or seeking to engage in 

negotiations to reduce its size,48 but this is far from a showing of any substantial 

constraint on price. Similarly, even when customers attemfted to use stronger tactics, 

they remained unable to avoid Daramic's price increases.4 

Moreover, even if we were to assume that the four claimed power buyers 

somehow would be able to avoid price increases as a result of their size and 

sophistication, there is no reason to believe that other Daramic customers would fare as 

well. Separator sales are individually negotiated for each customer, and the separators 

are manufactured with customer-specific designs. IDF 117. In these circumstances, 

smaller buyers would not be protected by the resistance offered by larger, more powerful 

customers. See, e.g., United States v. United Tote, Inc., 768 F. Supp. 1064, 1085 

(D. Del. 1991) (large customers that could protect themselves would not shelter smaller 

buyers from increased prices); FTC v. Bass Bros. Enterprises, Inc., 1984-1 Trade Cas. 

(CCH) ~ 66,041 at 68,616 (N.D. Ohio 1984) (large buyers could not protect remainder of 

purchasers). 

VII. REMEDY 

To remedy Respondent's violation of Section 7, the ALJ ordered complete 

divestiture of Microporous' assets, which included the manufacturing plants in Piney 

Flats and Feistritz, as well as the line in boxes. ID at 330-31; Order at ~~ I.AA, II.A, II.B. 

The divestiture also included any technology and intellectual property that Microporous 

owned before the acquisition, along with additions or improvements that Respondent 

made to those assets since the acquisition. ID at 338; Order at ~ II.A. To ensure a 

divestiture buyer could continue operating the Piney Flats and Feistritz plants without 

47 The other putative power buyers do not have a recent pricing history with Daramic for SLI separators. 

EnerSys and Trojan Battery do not sell SLI batteries. IDF 56-57, 60. JCI's SLI business is covered by a 

2007 exclusive contract with Entek. IDF 734, 736. 

48 In the deep-cycle market, Daramic announced a post-acquisition price increase of 15% on CellForce and 

13% on Flex-Sil despite a contract that limited price increases. Trojan responded with a counterproposal 

accepting only much smaller increases. Daramic reduced its announced increase only slightly, to 13% on 

Cell Force and 10% on Flex-Sit. When no agreement was reached, Daramic sued Trojan. The dispute had 

not been resolved as of the time oftriat. IDF 557-60. 

49 EnerSys and Exide have short-paid invoices in response to price increases but have no choice but to pay 

the increases when Daramic threatens to cut off supply. IDF 562-63 (in the post-acquisition deep-cycle 

market, Exide ultimately agreed to pay a surcharge); IDF 205-06 (in the motive market, at the time of the 

trial, Daramic was seeking price increases that EnerSys would have no choice but to pay if Daramic 

threatened to cut off supply). 

36 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 74 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

disruption, the ALl also ordered Respondent to grant the acquirer a perpetual, worldwide, 

royalty-free license to Daramic technology that Respondent used at these manufacturing 

facilities. ID at 338; Order at ~ II.C.4. Respondent was ordered to agree that it would not 

sue the acquirer to block access to technology that Respondent owned at the time of 

divestiture, where the lawsuit would interfere with the acquirer's ability to compete in the 

relevant markets. ID at 338; Order at ~ II.F.1. The ALl also ordered other ancillary 

relief to sup~ort the divestiture and restore competition that was lost as a result of the 

acquisition. 0 ID at 339-41. 

Assuming liability, Respondent argues that divesture of the Feistritz plant is not 

necessary to restore competition in North America. RAB at 50-56; RRB at 16-17. 

Respondent also challenges the portion of the ALl's order requiring it to grant the 

acquirer a license to certain Daramic intellectual property used since the acquisition. 

Respondent also takes issue with two of the ancillary provisions: Paragraph VI, 

regarding customer contracts executed after the acquisition, and Paragraph V.B.I., 

regarding maintenance of the Microporous workforce. RAB at 57-58. 

The purpose of relief in a Section 7 case is to restore competition lost through the 

unlawful acquisition. See Evanston Northwestern, Comm'n Op. on Remedy at 3 (Apr. 

28, 2008), available at www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d93151080428commopiniononremedy.pdf; 

Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 405 U.S. 562, 573 n.8 (1972). We recognize that 

complete divestiture is generally the most appropriate way to restore competition lost 

through an unlawful acquisition. See United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 

366 U.S. 316, 329 (1961); Chicago Bridge, 534 F.3d at 441. Moreover, because 

Complaint Counsel have established a strong case of liability in three of the relevant 

markets, any doubts as to remedy should be resolved in favor of broader relief. See 

E.1. du Pont de Nemours, 366 U.S. at 334; Chicago Bridge, 138 F.T.C. at 1164. 

In accordance with these well-established principles, we conclude that complete 

divestiture is the most appropriate remedy. As discussed in more detail below, complete 

divestiture provides the greatest likelihood that the asset package will restore competition 

and be sufficiently viable to readily attract an acceptable buyer. We therefore order 

Daramic to divest all the assets it acquired from Microporous, including the plant in 

Feistritz. We also adopt the remaining provisions of the ALl's Order with certain 

modifications. 

A. DIVESTITURE 

The Commission is "clothed with wide discretion in determining the type of order 

that is necessary to bring an end to the unfair practices found to exist." FTC v. National 

50 Paragraph III of the Order provides for the appointment of a Monitor Trustee to ensure compliance with 

the Order. Paragraph IV provides for a divestiture trustee in the event Respondent does not divest within 

the required time frame. Paragraph V requires Respondent to maintain the Microporous assets pending 

divestiture. Paragraph VI requires Respondent to permit customers to reopen and negotiate or terminate 

contracts entered into by Daramic after its acquisition of Microporous. Paragraph VII relates to Count II 

and is not at issue on appeal. Paragraph VIII prevents Respondent from introducing any battery separator 

using the Microporous cross-linked rubber technology for a period of two years following the divestiture. 

37 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 75 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

Lead Co., 352 U.S. 419, 428 (1957). In the exercise of that discretion, the Commission 

may order divestiture of assets outside the relevant market where divestiture of those 

assets is necessary to restore competition within the relevant market. See Chicago 

Bridge, 138 F.T.C. at 1163-64 (ordering divestiture of assets for building water tanks 

although the relevant product market was cryogenic tanks, because cryogenic tank sales 

were irregularly timed and water tank sales would provide the regular income stream 

needed for the divestiture buyer's viability), affd, 534 F.3d at 442. We find that 

complete divestiture of the fonner Microporous battery separator business, including the 

Feistritz plant, is warranted here. 

As an initial matter, a divestiture package that includes the Feistritz plant will 

allow the acquirer to maintain sufficient capacity at the Piney Flats facility to ensure that 

it can effectively compete for business in North America. Prior to the acquisition, 

Microporous produced CellForce for its foreign customers at its Piney Flats plant, which 

constrained its capacity to compete for additional business within North America. 

IOF 769, 795. In 2005 and 2006, the CellForce line at Piney Flats was operating at full 

capacity. RX0741 at 65; Trevathan, Tr. 3667-68. As a result, Microporous was unable to 

respond to new North American customer demand. For example, EnerSys was using 

CellForce in Europe but was unable to obtain CellForce for North America because of 

this capacity constraint. Axt, Tr. 2126. Similarly, Trojan Battery's ability to expand its 

use of CellForce for its deep-cycle batteries was limited by the capacity constraint at 

Piney Flats. Godber, Tr. 276. Once the Feistritz plant was under construction, 

Microporous became a more vigorous competitor in North America. Microporous was 

able to commit to additional North American CellForce sales to EnerSys, Trojan Battery, 

and U.S. Battery. IOF 787, 1280; Godber, Tr. 226-27; PXI741 at 4, in camera. 

Microporous also entered into discussions with other battery separator customers who 

had not yet made purchase commitments at the time of the acquisition. IOF 797. 

Absent divestiture of the Feistritz plant, an acquirer is likely to face the saIne 

capacity constraint Microporous faced before it constructed the Feistritz plant. CellForce 

production in 2008 totaled nearly_. RX0677, in camera. Microporous' backfill 

efforts that began after 2008 led t~nal commitments from EnerSys, Trojan, and 

U.S. Battery that would have added more than 3.3 msm to sales. RX0207, in camera; 

Godber, Tr. 226-27; PX1741, in camera; Wallace, Tr. 1977; Qureshi, Tr. 2037. The 

2008 production plus the additional commitments exceeded the Piney Flats plant's 

CellForce capacity of II msm. RX0561 , in camera. Beyond the existing commitments, 

Microporous executives had no doubt they would be able to backfill the remaining freed 

capacity at Piney Flats after production for European customers was transferred to 

Feistritz. Microporous' President at the time of the acquisition testified that in 2007 "we 

had more offers for business than we were going to be able to handle under the scenario 

of backfilling." Gilchrist, Tr. 344. Because the purpose of any divestiture is to create an 

effective future competitor that would restore lost competition, it is important to avoid 

saddling the divestiture buyer with capacity constraints that would hinder its ability to 

seek future sales and limit its competitive significance in the relevant markets. 

Respondent argues that even if Piney Flats does not provide the acquirer with 

enough capacity to compete effectively in North America, divestiture of the line in boxes 

38 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 76 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

is the proper solution. We disagree. The line in boxes is not yet operational at Piney 

Flats. IOF 1269. Although design and planning work has been done and much of the 

long-lead equipment has been acquired, not all of the necessary equipment is on hand. 

IDF 775, 1268. As of the time of the trial, no work had been done to install the line. 

IDF 777. On average, it takes about four months to install equipment and about two 

months to start up and debug a separator line. IOF 975. Even after installation, more 

time will be necessary for the line to operate efficiently, and it will take six months to 

fully train the manufacturing line workforce. IDF 985. The acquirer would also need 

time for customers to qualify any material produced on the new production line. 

Gilchrist, Tr. 322-23, 348. Thus, the line in boxes would not provide the acquirer with 

the timely or certain production capacity it would need to compete effectively in North 

America when the order takes effect. Moreover, while the line in boxes and the 

CellForce line at Piney Flats would provide sufficient capacity to produce the current 

worldwide volume of CellForce, if that capacity were largely employed to produce 

CellForce for motive and deep-cycle customers, the acquirer would not have meaningful 

capacity to compete for SLI business with either CellForce or a pure PE separator, as 

Microporous was doing at the time of the acquisition. 51 

In addition to eliminating the capacity constraint in North America, a divestiture 

package that includes the Feistritz plant will also allow the acquirer to offer North 

American customers benefits they find attractive, and that Microporous would have 

offered absent the acquisition. The evidence shows that some customers prefer suppliers 

with multiple plants as insurance against supply disruptions at anyone location. IOF 313 

(finding that EnerSys imported separators from Oaralnic's Feistritz plant for use in 

Mexico during a 2008 strike at Daramic's Owensboro plant); Hauswald, Tr. 1073-74 

(describing how Oaramic shifted production from Owensboro to Piney Flats to partially 

compensate for the strike at Owensboro). EnerSys, Trojan Battery, Exide, and Crown 

Battery all testified that it was important to have a supplier with more than one plant for 

an essential input like a separator. IOF 1273; Axt, Tr. 2129-31; PX1660 at 2-3; Godber, 

Tr. 225-26; Gillespie, Tr. 2993; Balcerzak, Tr. 4125-26. Indeed, when Microporous had 

only the plant in Piney Flats, EnerSys would not commit to additional volume unless 

Microporous had another manufacturing facility. IOF 1277. Daramic itself considers 

multiple plants an advantage and emphasizes its multi-plant operations as a selling point 

to customers. 52 Roe, Tr. 1318. 

Customers also prefer suppliers with global operations. Two of Microporous' 

largest global customers expressed their preference to work with a supplier that can 

provide local supply for their global operations. Larry Axt, Vice-President of Global 

Procurement for EnerSys, testified that his company had large manufacturing operations 

in both Europe and North America, and he preferred to do business with a supplier that 

51 The capacity of the line in boxes is ) ) msm, which can be used for either CelJForce or a pure PE 

separator. PX0063 at 3. The Cell Force line in Piney Flats, plus the line in boxes, would provide capacity 

of22 msm. 

52 Respondent now argues that customers could gain equivalent protection through other steps such as 

acquiring and holding backup supplies. This, however, would increase the customers' warehousing and 

inventory costs and make it more difficult for the supplier to compete effectively. 

39 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 77 of 84

.~ 

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

could provide supply locally to both regions. Axt, Tr. 2108-09. Although EnerSys does 

more business in Europe than in North America, it is the largest producer of industrial 

batteries in the world, with three plants producing motive batteries located in North 

America. IDF 56-59, 278. Similarly, Melvin Gillespie, Vice-President of Global 

Procurement for Exide, testified that because Exide has large operations in both North 

America and Europe, a Microporous with production capacity in both North America and 

Europe "would be the best model for us." Gillespie, Tr. 3131-3132, in camera. Exide is 

also one of the largest buyers of battery separators in the world. IDF 52-55. At the time 

of the acquisition, Microporous was able to offer all its customers the insurance of 

multiple plants and the cost advantages associated with global operations. These 

attributes would have made Microporous a more attractive option for North American 

customers, and a more effective competitor in the relevant markets. Divestiture of the 

Piney Flats plant alone, even with the line in boxes, would not restore the more attractive 

competitor lost through the unlawful acquisition. 53 

Respondent also claims that a divestiture package that includes the Feistritz 

facility will not be viable in the marketplace because Feistritz is currently operating at a 

loss. According to Respondent, an order that requires divestiture of Feistritz without a 

minimum price is punitive. RAB at 56. We agree with Respondent that we must 

consider the viability of the asset package in the marketplace. We conclude, however, 

that excluding Feistritz from the divestiture package creates the greater risk to 

marketplace viability. As we explain above, a divestiture package that does not include 

the Feistritz plant will not provide the acquirer with sufficient capacity to expand in the 

North American markets for motive and SLI separators. Moreover, since the acquisition, 

Daramic has transferred CellForce production for EnerSys' foreign plants from its Piney 

Flats plant to Feistritz, which Microporous was planning to do at the time of the 

acquisition. Gaugl, Tr. 4569-70; Trevathan, Tr. 3762-63. EnerSys is also currently an 

important CellForce customer in North America. Axt, Tr. 2099-2101, 2108. Excluding 

the Feistritz facility from the divestiture package would result in a buyer acquiring the 

entire CellForce business, including the EnerSys contracts, but not the production 

facilities that Daramic currently operates to fulfill those contracts. Without both 

production facilities, the associated disruption to the ongoing CellForce business will 

likely diminish rather than enhance the marketability of the former Microporous 

business. 54 

53 Respondent also contends that because Microporous was "viable" before operations at Feistritz 

commenced, a divestiture buyer would not need the Feistritz plant for viability. But even if that were true, 

Respondent's contention is beside the point. Creating a finn whose operations are merely viable would not 

fully replicate the competition that Daramic unlawfully eliminated. 

54 See FED. TRADE COMM'N, STATEMENT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION'S BUREAU OF COMPETITION 

ON NEGOTIATING MERGER REMEDIES (Apr. 2,2003), available al 

http://www.ftc.gov/bc/bestpractices/bestpractices030401.shtm. In policy guidance materials, the 

Commission's Bureau of Competition has stated that divestiture of an autonomous ongoing business 

increases the likelihood that a divestiture package will be viable and sufficient to restore competition in the 

relevant market because it requires the agency to make the fewest assumptions about the market and its 

participants. This same logic applies with even greater force to this consummated merger, where we know 

for a fact that Microporous, as it was constituted in February 2008, was a marketable business. See 

40 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 78 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

Finally, Respondent argues that the Feistritz divestiture is unjustified because the 

plant was not in operation at the time of the acquisition. But the Feistritz plant was in 

operation and producing commercial output within a week of the acquisition. IDF 1266. 

At the time of the acquisition, Microporous had employees in place and was testing the 

components of the production lines. IDF 1265. And, as discussed above, the backfill 

efforts associated with Microporous' planned expansion impacted competition in North 

America for at least several months prior to the acquisition as they allowed Microporous 

to secure additional business. 

We thus conclude that complete divestiture of Microporous, including the 

Feistritz plant, is necessary to restore lost competition to the relevant North American 

markets. 

B. ANCILLARY RELIEF 

Respondent contests three additional provisions in the ALl's Order. Respondent 

first objects to the requirement that it maintain a workforce equal to that in place at the 

time of the acquisition. RAB at 56, n.33; Order at ~ V.B.l. Respondent explains that the 

workforce has already dropped below the February 2008 level due to the recession, 

efficiencies implemented at the Piney Flats plant, and employees that have quit. Id. 

Paragraph V.B.l. is designed to prevent Respondent from depleting the workforce once a 

divestiture is ordered. It does not appear that Daramic had any general incentive to 

deplete the Microporous workforce in a manner that might adversely impact the viability 

and competitiveness of the Microporous business prior to the date of the Order, March 1, 

2010. Accordingly, we modify Paragraph V.B.1. to require that Respondent maintain a 

workforce that is at least equivalent in size, training, and expertise to what was associated 

with the former Microporous as of March 1, 2010. 

Respondent also objects to the scope of post-acquisition customer contracts that 

are terminable pursuant to Paragraph VI.A. The ALJ's Order allows customers to reopen 

and negotiate or tenninate Daramic contracts that reflected the exercise of postacquisition market power. Respondent objects to the ALl's definition of "Terminable 

Contracts" because it would include contracts entered into by Daramic prior to the 

acquisition that are in effect between the date of a final order and the effective date of the 

divestiture. RAB at 57. Complaint Counsel agree that pre-acquisition contracts should 

not be terminable so long as post-acquisition changes to such contracts remain 

terminable. CCAB at 61. We therefore modify the definition of "Terminable Contracts" 

to exclude contracts entered into by Daramic prior to the acquisition, while preserving the 

customer's ability to terminate post-acquisition modifications to such contracts. 

Finally, Respondent objects to Paragraph II.CA. of the ALJ's Order, which 

requires that it grant to the divestiture buyer a license to certain intellectual property that 

Chicago Bridge, 138 F.T.C. at 1164 ("[W]hat we know with certainty is that this combination of assets has 

made a saleable package in the past."); RSR Corp., 88 F.T.C. 800, 894 (1976) ("[A]bsent clear proof, which 

is generally likely to come only at the compliance stage when a good faith effort to divest has been made, 

the presumption should be that an acquired competitive entity can be viably restored to its pre-acquisition 

status."). 

41 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 79 of 84

PUBLIC - PROVISIONALLY REDACTED VERSION 

was owned or used by Daramic prior to the acquisition. RAB at 57. Complaint Counsel 

have clarified that they interpret the definition as only including such "intellectual 

property that Respondent voluntarily chose to use in and commingle with Microporous' 

operations." CCAB at 61 (emphasis in original). The license is not, therefore, meant to 

extend to all of Respondent's pre-acquisition intellectual property, but only to such 

intellectual property as Respondent may have chosen to use or incorporate in 

Microporous operations or Microporous battery separators during the course of the 

investigation, litigation, and pending divestiture. 

We retain the licensing provision because it protects the divestiture buyer from 

having to, in effect, remove any improvements or alterations that Respondent has 

incorporated in the products by using Daramic pre-acquisition intellectual property. 

Removal of the incorporated intellectual property could adversely impact customers of 

the divestiture buyer and undermine the divestiture buyer's reputation. In addition, the 

threat of removal could hann sales of the battery separators that would be divested if 

customers were to perceive that such improvements would be removed from products 

delivered after divestiture. However, we lnodify the definition of "Shared Intellectual 

Property" to make it clear that not every "Retained Asset" is included in the license to the 

divestiture buyer. The scope of the license extends only to such intellectual property that 

the Respondent chose to use or incorporate in the operations or separators that will be 

divested. 

42 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 80 of 84

In the Matter of 

POLYPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

a corporation 

Docket No. 9327 

Concurring Opinion of Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch 

I concur with the Commission's thorough and well-reasoned decision finding that 

Daramic's acquisition of Microporous violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act. I also concur with 

the Commission's conclusion that only complete divestiture will remedy this violation. I write 

separately to describe an alternate analytical framework that would focus on the competitive 

effects of this transaction instead of focusing initially on defining the precise contours of the 

relevant market and only then considering the transaction's competitive effects. 

I also write separately to address Daramic's assertion that the Commission should 

consider first and foremost the testimony of the economic expert it retained and the economic 

tools described in the Horizontal Merger Guidelines in defining the relevant market. I would 

focus instead on the direct evidence of competitive effects, including the parties' motives for 

the merger and their post-merger behavior, and let that direct evidence define the market that is 

relevant in this case. 

I. THE LAW 

The Commission's decision acknowledges that both the courts and the Commission 

have recognized that the traditional burden-shifting framework that begins with defining the 

relevant market "does not exhaust the possible ways to prove a § 7 violation on the merits." 

Opinion at 11 (quoting FTC v. Whole Foods Market, 548 F.3d 1028, 1036 (D.C. Cir. 2008) 

(Brown,1.)). Nevertheless, the Commission's opinion embraces a traditional analytical 

framework in this case, including precise upfront market definition. Opinion at 10-11. 

The ultimate inquiry in this case, as in any Section 7 case, is whether the transaction is 

likely to result in anticompetitive effects, not what the precise metes and bounds of the relevant 

market are. In rule of reason cases brought under Section I of the Sherman Act, the courts 

have long analyzed the analogous issue of whether it is appropriate to determine the lawfulness 

of completed or ongoing conduct by evidence of anticompetitive effects, rather than by 

requiring precise upfront market definition. See FTC v. Ind. Fed'n a/Dentists, 476 U.S. 447 

(1986); Toys "R" Us, Inc. v. FTC, 221 F.3d 928,937 (7th Cir. 2000); Ball Mem '/ Hasp. v. Mut. 

Hasp. Ins., 784 F.2d 1325, 1336 (7th Cir. 1986); see a/so Republic Tobacco Co. v. N. At/. 

Trading Co., 381 F.3d 717, 737 (7th Cir. 2004) ("Toys 'R' Us [and] Indiana Federation 0/ 

Dentists . .. stand for the proposition that if a plaintiff can show the rough contours of a 

relevant market, and show that the defendant commands a substantial share of the market, then 

direct evidence of anticompetitive effects can establish the defendant's market power-in lieu 

of the usual showing of a precisely defined relevant market and a monopoly market share."). 

In that context, the courts have recognized that the purposes of market definition, on the 

one hand, and direct evidence of anticompetitive effects, on the other hand, are consistent-
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 81 of 84

both techniques seek to determine whether an agreement by competitors is likely to facilitate 

the exercise of market power, or whether a completed agreement has enabled the exercise of 

market power. See Toys "R" Us, 221 F.3d at 937. Thus, for more than a decade, scholars have 

declared that in Section 1 rule of reason cases, market definition is not an end in itself but 

rather an indirect means to assist in determining the existence or likelihood of the exercise of 

market power. See lIB Phillip E. Areeda & Herbert Hovenkalnp, Antitrust Law § 532a, at 242-

43 (3d ed. 2007); Herbert Hovenkamp, Federal Antitrust Policy § 12.8, at 550 (3d ed. 2005). 

Put differently, both the courts and scholars have recognized that in Section 1 rule of reason 

cases, market definition is a tool for analyzing market power, but it is not the only tool, either 

as a matter of law or economics. 

There is no principled reason why the same analysis should not be used in Section 7 

cases. Indeed, two decades ago, Judge Posner observed that judicial interpretation of Section 1 

of the Sherman Act and Section 7 of the Clayton Act had converged. United States v. Rockford 

Mem'l Corp., 898 F.2d 1278, 1281-83 (7th Cir. 1990); see also IV Phillip E. Areeda & Herbert 

Hovenkamp, Antitnlst Law § 913b (3d ed. 2009) ("In cases where a merger facilitates a 

significant 'unilateral' price increase for a grouping of sales that was not an obvious relevant 

market prior to the merger, the appropriate conclusion is that the merger has identified a new 

grouping of sales capable of being classified as a relevant market. This formulation meets the 

statutory requirement [in Section 7] that the 'effect' of a merger is anticompetitive in some 

'line of commerce' and in some 'section of the country."'). At the same time, Judge Thomas 

(now Justice Thomas) emphasized in United States v. Baker Hughes, Inc., 908 F.2d 981,992 

(D.C. Cir. 1990), that the ultimate inquiry in a Section 7 case is whether the transaction is likely 

to result in anticompetitive effects, not simply to define the relevant market. 

This is not to say that one can avoid defining the relevant market altogether. As the 

passage from Areeda & Hovenkamp makes clear, the text of Section 7 requires identification of 

the "line of commerce" and the "section of the country" that are likely to suffer anticompetitive 

effects as a result of a transaction. See also Republic Tobacco, 381 F.3d at 737 (in Section 1 

cases, an antitrust plaintiff cannot "dispense entirely with market definition" but it is sufficient 

that the "rough contours" of the market be identified). In the case of a consummated merger, 

which this is, there is generally no need to predict whether the transaction is likely to result in 

anticompetitive effects because that will be apparent from what has actually occurred. When 

that is so, the competitive effects themselves may define the relevant market. Thus, at least in a 

case like this, market definition cannot properly be considered a gating item in the sense that 

competitive effects cannot be considered before the market is defined. Indeed, in the case of a 

consummated merger, the relevant market may generally be defined after the effects of the 

transaction are identified. 

The authorities on which Daramic relies are not to the contrary. Daramic asserts, for 

example, that market definition is a "critical" requirement in antitrust cases generally, and it 

cites seven cases supporting that assertion. RAB at 9. That is correct, but it does not mean that 

the relevant market must necessarily be defined with precision upfront. Daramic also contends 

that Complaint Counsel bears the burden of proving the relevant market. Id. That is true too, 

but it does not mean that Complaint Counsel cannot bear this burden, at least in a consummated 

merger case, by proving that the challenged merger resulted in anticompetitive effects. In fact, 

2 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 82 of 84

that is just what former Chairman Muris contemplated when he said that in a consummated 

merger case, "it's not enough to assert that the transaction was anticompetitive - you have to 

prove it." Id. at 9 n.7 (quoting Interview with Timothy Muris, Global Competition Review, 

Dec. 21, 2004). 

Daramic repeatedly assails the ALl's reliance on statements of the parties and other 

participants in the market, including customers, instead of on "economic" or "econometric" 

evidence. Id. at 1,6-7,9-24. Specifically, Daramic urges that the testimony of Complaint 

Counsel's expert be disregarded because he relied on "soft" qualitative evidence instead of 

"rigorous" economic tests like the "hypothetical monopolist test," the SSNIP test, and the 

Elzinga-Hogarty test. Id. at 1,6-7,10-15,19-21,23-24. Similarly, Daramic urges that the 

testimony of its own expert must be credited because it was "grounded" in such economic 

theories. Id. at 15-16, 21, 23-24. I In the same vein, at pages 10 and 16 of its appeal 

brief, Daramic describes as a "46-year old" historical relic the Supreme Court's decision in 

Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 325 (1962), in which the Court specifically 

blessed the use of "practical indicia" of the market, like the views of market participants, to 

define the relevant market. 2 Presumably, Daramic would also dismiss the district court's 

decision in FTC v. Staples, Inc., 970 F. Supp. 1066, 1075, 1078 (D.D.C. 1997) and the D.C. 

Circuit's majority decision in Whole Foods, 548 F.3d at 1033 (Brown, 1.); id. at 1044-45 (Tatel, 

1.), both of which relied on such "practical indicia" in the same fashion. 3 

To be sure, economic analyses like the "hypothetical monopolist" test, the SSNIP test, 

and the Elzinga-Hogarty test may be valuable predictive tools in unconsummated merger cases 

where there is a need to predict whether the transaction will result in anticompetitive effects. 

But, where, as here, the merger has been consummated, the need for predicting the effects of 

the transaction may be reduced or eliminated. That, in tum, may reduce or eliminate the need 

for economic tools to help make the prediction. There may be empirical evidence whether and 

to what extent customers regarded the parties' rivals as alternatives before and after the 

transaction; whether a price increase or a significant impairment in non-price terms or 

innovation occurred in the wake of the transaction; and whether and to what extent rivals were 

attracted by the changes resulting from the transaction and capitalized on them by entry or 

I I emphasize that I would not choose the testimony of Complaint Counsel's expert over the 

testimony of Daramic's expert, as such, or the use of the hypothetical monopolist and SSNIP 

tests, which these experts purported to use. Opinion at 17-18. I only credit the testimony of 

Complaint Counsel's expert insofar as that testimony accurately described the "practical 

indicia" endorsed in Brown Shoe. 

2 Daramic invokes "soft" evidence of the relevant market-i.e., practical indicia of the 

relevant market of the sort blessed in Brown Shoe-when it considers it in its self-interest to do 

so. RAB at 8, 18, 20-23. 

3 Daramic's contention at page 12 of its appeal brief that reliance on such "soft" evidence 

did not permit Complaint Counsel's expert to "estimate cross-elasticities of demand" is wrong. 

As Daramic admits in footnote 11 of its brief, Complaint Counsel's expert specifically relied on 

"statements by the buyers that they had very little options to substitute" to find that "the 

demand curve was very inelastic." 

3 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 83 of 84

repositioning. Evidence about what actually happened following the transaction may, in other 

words, reduce the need to employ economic theories in order to predict the relevant market or 

what is likely to happen-in particular, the SSNIP test described in the Horizontal Merger 

Guidelines. Put differently, economic theory is not a substitute for, or superior to, the empirical 

evidence about whether the transaction has actually resulted in anti competitive effects. See, 

e.g., FTC v. CCC Holdings Inc., 605 F. Supp. 2d 26, 68-72 (D.D.C. 2009); Abbott Labs. v. 

Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 432 F. Supp. 2d 408,428 (D. Del. 2006); FTC v. Arch Coal, Inc., 329 

F. SUpp. 2d 109 (D.D.C. 2004); FTC v. Staples, Inc., 970 F. SUpp. 1066 (D.D.C. 1997). 

Again, however, it cannot be said that the fact that a merger is consummated will 

always eliminate the need for these predictive tools. For one thing, in United States v. General 

Dynamics Corp., 415 U.S. 486 (1974), the Supreme Court held that ifand to the extent a 

relevant market was dynamic (or to put it simply, that the past or cUlTent circumstances in the 

market were not prologue), adjustments should be made in our assumptions about those 

circumstances. That may require predictions that can be aided by the use of economic tools. 

For another thing, drivers are more careful when they see a police car nearby (or think that one 

may be nearby). See Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. v. FTC, 534 F.3d 410, 434-35 (5th Cir. 2008) 

(observing that post-acquisition evidence can be manipulated by respondents). Thus, what has 

actually occurred may be illusory. It may be that as soon as the police are gone (or in this 

context, as soon as an investigation or challenge is over), market conduct may change radically. 

For that reason too, predictive economic tools may be useful in some, but not all, consummated 

merger cases. But the record does not reflect the need for such tools in this case. 

II. THE FACTS 

The Commission opinion describes in detail evidence demonstrating that Daramic's 

acquisition was likely to and in fact did cause anticompetitive effects. I write separately to 

emphasize two types of evidence that are particularly helpful in illuminating the transaction's 

effects: Daramic's documents describing the transaction's purpose, and post-merger price 

increases. 

Both the ALl and the Commission found that Daramic's documents established that 

Daramic acquired Microporous (1) to eliminate a key competitive threat in the motive, deep 

cycle, and SLI markets; (2) to eliminate a threat to its revenues and profits; and (3) to enable 

price increases. Opinion at 28-30. The Supreme Court has held that the intent of a party can be 

considered to illuminate the effects of its conduct. See Aspen Skiing Co v. Aspen Highlands 

Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585, 602 (1985) ("evidence of intent is .... relevant to the question 

whether the challenged conduct is fairly characterized as 'exclusionary' or 'anticompetitive"'); 

Chicago Bd o/Trade v. United States, 246 U.S. 231, 238 (1918) ("knowledge of intent may 

help the court to interpret facts and to predict consequences"); see also United States v. 

Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 59 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ("Evidence of the intent behind the conduct 

of a monopolist is relevant ... to the extent it helps us understand the likely effect of the 

monopolist's conduct."); U.s. Football League v. NFL, 842 F.2d 1335, 1359 (2d Cir. 1988) 

("Evidence of intent and effect helps the trier of fact to evaluate the actual effect of challenged 

business practices in light of the intent of those who resort to such practices."). Thus, I 

consider this evidence to be relevant in order to assess the transaction's competitive effects. 

4 
Case: 11-10375 Date Filed: 01/28/2011 Page: 84 of 84

Both the ALJ and the Commission opinion also found that Daramic announced 

significant and wide-ranging post-acquisition price increases that were consistent with its preacquisition intent documents. Opinion at 30-31; IDF 897-918. Daramic argues that these price 

increases were justified by higher input costs, but both the Commission opinion and the ALJ 

found otherwise. Opinion at 31; IDF 917-22. Daramic also argues that the price increases 

were never implemented, but merely announced. RAB at 36. This ignores the surcharge that 

Daramic announced and instituted for most customers on July 1, 2008. IDF 906. In addition, 

Daramic announced increased prices in late 2008 and early 2009, which were effective for 

many customers. Opinion at 30-31; IDF 897-918. For other customers, the record was closed 

before a final price was reached. Yet even for these customers, the evidence shows that 

Daramic was seeking significant price increases and that customers had very limited success 

resisting those increases. And, perhaps most significantly, those price increases did not result 

in a single lost sale for Daramic. IDF 916. 

III. CONCLUSION 

In sum, especially where, as here, the merger at issue is consummated, it is generally 

preferable to determine whether a merger has had anti competitive effects by reference to the 

parties' motives for the transaction and the actual effects resulting from the merger instead of 

trying first to define with precision the dimensions of relevant market based on the testimony of 

paid expert economists and the predictive economic tools described in the Merger Guidelines. 

5