2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

1-7-2010 

# F eese rs Inc v

. Mich a el F o o d s Inc
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-2548

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin
. C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" F e e s e r s Inc v

. Mich a e l F ood s Inc " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1971. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/19711 P RE CE DE NT I AL

UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N os . 09- 2548, 09- 2952, 09- 2993

F e e s e rs , In c ., Appel l anti n N

o. 09- 2993

v. M ic h a e l F o o d s , In c .; S o d e x h o , In c .,

Appel l ant

s i n N os . 09- 2548 and 09- 2952

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D i s t r i ctC our tN o. 04- cv- 00576 D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e Sy l vi a H

. R ambo

A r gued O ct ober29, 2009 B e f o re : S M IT H , F IS H E R , a n d N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJudges

.2 ( Fi l ed: J anuary7, 2010) L i s a M

. C ar d, E s q. J ohn F. C ol l i ns , E s q. J eff r eyL

. K es s l er , E s q. ( A r gued) G eor ge E. M as t or i s , E s q. E amon O ’ K el l y , E s q. Susa nnah P. T orpey , E s q. D EW EY & L E B OEU F 1301 A venue of

t he A m er i cas N ew Y or k, N Y 10019- 0000 St even M

. W i l l i ams, E s q. C OH EN , S EGL I AS , P AL L AS , G R E E N H A LL & F URMAN 240 N or t h T hi r d St r eet 7t h Fl oor H arr i s bur g, PA 17101- 0000 C ouns el f orFees ers , I

nc. J ames S. B al l enger , E s q. J enni ferL

. G i or dano, E s q. M aur een E. M ahoney , E s q. E r i c J

. M cC ar t hy , E s q. M ar gar etM

. Z w i s l er , E s q. L ATH AM & W ATK INS 5 5 5 1 1 t h S t r e e t , N

. W. Sui t e 1000 W as hi ngt on, D C 20004- 00003 D avi d A

. A ppl ebaum, E s q. R ober tL

. D eM ay , E s q. D avi d G

. Par r y , E s q. L EONARD , S TR EET & D EINARD 150 Sout h Fi fth St r eet Sui t e 2300 M i nneapol i s , M N 02300- 0000 R oyT

. E ngl er t , J r . , E s q. ( A r gued) R OB B INS , R U S S E LL , E NGL ERT , O R SE C K & U NTE R EINER 1 8 0 1 K S t r e e t , N

. W. Sui t e 411 W as hi ngt on, D C 20006- 0000 B r i dgetE

. M ont gom ery , E s q. E CKERT , S EAM AN S , C HER IN & M EL L OTT 213 M arketSt r eet 8t h Fl oor H arr i s bur g, PA 17101- 0000 A l fr ed C

. Pfei ffe r , E s q. L ATH AM & W ATK INS 505 M ont gom erySt r eet Sui t e 1900 San Fr anci s co, C A 94111- 0000 C ouns el f orMi chael

Foods , I nc. Scot tP. Fi nk, E s q. J enni ferB

. Fur ey , E s q. M ar t i n F. G aynor , I I I , E s q. C OO L EY , M AN I ON & J ON ES 21 C us t om H ous e St r eet B os t on, M A 02110- 00004 T hom as D emi t r ack, E s q. J ONES D AY 901 L akes i de A venue N or t h Poi nt C l evel and, O H 44114- 0000 H as hi m M

. M ooppan, E s q. G l en D

. N ager , E s q. ( A r gued) J ONES D AY 5 1 L o u i s i a n a A v e n u e , N

. W. W as hi ngt on, D C 20001- 0000 M at t hew M

. H aar , E s q. S A U L E W ING T w o N or t h Second St r eet Penn N at i onal I ns ur ance T ow er , 7t h Fl oor H arr i s bur g, PA 17101- 0000 C ouns el f orSodexho, I

nc.

OP I NI ON

S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge.
T h is a p p ea l byF ee sers, Inc. (“F ee sers” ), a f o o d d istri b u tor, ar i s es outof a Robi ns on- Pat m an A ctcl ai m forunl aw ful p ri ce di s c r i mi na t i on , 15 U

. S. C. § 1 3 ( the “ RPA ” ) , a ga i ns tM i c ha e l Foo ds ,Sodexho, I nc. change d i t s name t o Sodexo, I nc. dur i ng 1 th e c o u rse o f

th is l iti g a tio n . W e w ill re f e r to th e c o m p a n yb yits new name. S e c tio n 2 (a ) o f

th e R P A , in r e lev a n t p a rt, state s th a t: 2 It sh a ll b e u n law f

u l f o r a n yp e rso n e n g a g e d in comm er ce, i n t he cour s e of s uch comm er ce, ei t her di r ect l yori ndi r ect l y , t o discri m i nat e i n pr i ce betw een di ffe r ent pur chas er s of comm odi t i es of l i ke gr ade a nd qual i t y , w her e ei t her oranyof the p u rc h a se s in v o lv e d in su c h d is c rim in a tio n a re in comm er ce, w her e s uch comm odi t i es ar e s ol d for us e, cons um pt i on, or r es al e w i t hi n the U ni t ed St at es oranyT err it o ryther eof orthe D i s t r i ctof C ol um bi a orany i ns ul ar pos s es s i on orotherpl ace unde r t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e Uni t e d St a t e s , and w her e the ef

fec tof s uch di s cri m i nat i on m aybe su b sta n tiallyto le s s e n c o m p e tit io n o r te n d to c re a te a m o n o p o ly in a n y lin e o f c o m m e rc e , o r to 5 Inc

. (“M icha els”), a f

o o d m an u fa cture r, an d S o d ex o , Inc

. (“S o d ex o ”), 1 a food se r vi ce managementcompany . Fees er s cl ai m s t hatSodexo w as a b le to p u r c h a s e e g g a n d p o tato p ro d u c ts f ro m M ich a e ls a t a di s count ed pr i ce thatw as unavai l abl e t o Fees er s . Fol l ow i ng a benc h trial, th e D istric t C o u rt e n ter e d ju d g m e n t f o r F e e se rs. W e w ill v a c a te t hat j ud g m e nt and i nst ructthe D i stri ctC ou rtt o en t er j ud gm ent as a m at t erof l aw for M i chae l s and S odexo. Fees er s and Sodexo w er e not compet i ng pur chas er s , and, t here for e, Fees er s cannots at i s fyt he compet i t i ve i nj ur yr equi r eme n t o f a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of pr i ce di s cr i m i nat i on under§ 2( a) of the R PA

. In doi ng s o, 2i nj ur e, des t roy , orpr eventcompet i t i on w i t h any per s on w ho ei therg rant s orknow i ngl yr ece i ves th e b e n e f

it o f su c h d isc rim in a tio n , o r w ith c u sto m e r s o f

e ith e r o f

th e m : P r ovi ded , T hat nothing h erei n cont ai ned s hal l pr event di ffe r ent i al s w hi ch make onl ydue al l ow ance for di ffe r ence s in the cos tof m anufa ctur e, s al e, or del i very r es ul t i ng fr om t he di ffe r i ng m ethods or quant i t i es i n w hi ch s uch comm odi t i es ar e t o s uch p u rc h a s e rs s o ld o r d e liv e re d [ .] . . . . A nd pr ovi ded f ur ther , T h a t n o th in g h e re in c o n tain e d sh a ll preven tpersons eng aged i n sel l i ng go od s, w ares , o r m e rc h a n d ise in c o m m e rc e f ro m se lec tin g th e ir ow n cus t om er s in bona fi de tr ans act i ons and not in re stra in t o f

tra d e : A nd pr ovi ded f

ur ther , T hat not hi ng her ei n cont ai ned s hal l pr eventpri ce c h a n g e s f

ro m tim e to tim e w h e re in re sp o n se to changi ng co n d i t i ons aff ect i ng t he mar ketforor t he mar ket abi l i t yof the goods conce r ned, s uch as butnot l i m i t ed t o actual ori m m i nentdet er i or at i on of per i s habl e g o ods , obs ol es cenc e of s eas onal goods , di s t r es s s al es undercourt pr oces s , ors al es i n good fai t h i n di s cont i nuance of bus i nes s i n the goods conce r ned. 1 5 U

. S

. C

. § 1 3 (a). 6 w e hol d t hat , i n a s econda r y - l i ne pr i ce di s cr i m i nat i on ca se, par t i es compet i ng i n a bi d m arket cannot be compet i ng pur chas er s w her e the com peti t i on for sal es t o p rospect i ve cu st om ers occu rs bef or e th e sa le o f th e p ro d u c t f

o r w h ic h th e R P A v io la tio n is a lle g e d

.T hr ee of t he fourr equi r ement s of a § 2( a) R ob i ns on- 3 P atm an claim h av e a lr ea d yb ee n estab li sh ed b yF ee sers a n d are n o t c o n t e s t e d in th is a p p e a l. Fees ers , I nc. , 498 F. 3d at208. F ee sers has s how n “thats al es w er e made t o t w o di ffe r ent pur chas er s [, Fees er s and Sodexo, ] i n i nt er s t at e comm er ce; that t he pr oducts ol d w as of the sam e g rad e and qua l i t y ; and that [ M i c h a e l s ] d i s c r i mi n a t e d i n p r i c e a s b e t we e n th e two pur chas er s . ” I

d. a t 2 1 1 . W h a t re m a in s f o r re so lu tio n b yth is C our ti s t he fourt h r equi r ement , a s how i ng “thatthe di s cr i m i nat i on had a pr ohi bi t ed ef fec ton compet i t i on. ” I d. at 2 1 2

. 7 Wh e n r e v i e w i n g a j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d a f t e r a b e n c h t r i a l , we exer ci s e “pl enary r evi ew over[the] [D ] i s t r i ct[C ] our t ’ s concl us i ons of l aw ” and i t s “choi ce a nd i nt erpr et at i on of l egal pr ece pt s . ” A m . S o c’y f or T est i ng& M

ater i als v. C orrpro C os. , 4 7 8 F .3 d 5 5 7 , 5 6 6 (3d C ir

. 2007) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed)

. Fi ndi ngs of fac t ar e r evi ew ed for c le a r e rr o r. I

d. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on over th is c a se u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 1 , an d w e e x e rc ise a p p e llate ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1

. M i chae l s and Sodexo r ai s e a hos tof i s s ues i n this a p p ea l , but i n l i ghtof thi s C our t ’ s deci s i on i n Tol edo M ack Sales & Se r vi ce, I

nc. v. Mack Tr ucks , I

nc. , 53 0 F. 3d 2 0 4 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) , a n d th e S u p r e me C our t ’ s deci s i on i n V

olvo Truc ks N

or th A m er i ca, I

nc. v. R eede r - Si m co GM C, I nc. , 546 U

. S. 164 ( 2006) , w e nee d ad d res s onl yt he i s s ue of w het h er Sodexo and Fees er s w er e “c om pet i ng pur chas er s ” for p u rp o s e s o f

th e R P A

. Feesers , Inc. v. Mi cha elFoo ds, I nc. , 498 F. 3d 206, 213 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( quot i ng Fal l s C i t y Indus

. v. V

anco Bever age , 4 6 0 U

. S

. 4 2 8 , 4 3 5 (19 8 3 )). 38 I.
T h e f o ll o w ing fa cts w ere fo u n d b ythe D istri ct C o u rtaf ter a b e n c h trial. Fees ers , I

nc. v. Mi chael

Foods , I nc. , 632 F. Supp. 2d 414, 4 1 8 (M

. D

. P a. 20 0 9 ).

Str ucture of

the Foo d S ervi ce Indu stry T he food s ervi ce i ndus t r ycons i s t s o f a thr ee- t i erdi s t r i but i on sy st em : m anu facturer s sel l produ ct s t o d istribu t ors, w ho res el l t ho se pr oduct s t o oper at or s , i ncl udi ng s el f- oper at o rs (“ s el f- ops ”) and food s e rv ic e m a n a g e m e n t c o m p a n ie s . Id

. a t 4 2 0 -21

. S elf-o p s are inst i tut i ons t hatper form al l di ni ng s ervi ces i nt ernal l y . Food se r vi ce m anage m entcompani es per form i ns t i tut i ons ’ di ni ng s ervi ces fora fe e, i d. , and pri m ari l yt argetschoo l s, ho spi t al s, and nu rsing h om es. Som et i m es o p era t or s negot i at e w i t h m anufa ctur er s fordi s count ed pr i ces , know n as “devi at ed pr i ces . ” I d. at432. I n t hos e i ns t ance s , the d istri b u tor p u rch ase s the p rod u ct at l istp ri ce fro m the m an u fa cture r, s el l s t he pr oductt o t he oper at or at t he devi at ed pr i ce, and r ece i ves the di ffe r ence betw een the l i s tpr i ce a nd t he devi at ed pr i ce f r om the m a n u f a c tu re r. I

d. A n oper at orm ay al s o s eek di s count s fr om m an u fa cture rs byjoining a G rou p P u rch asin g O rga n izati o n (“G P O ”). A G PO i s a col l ect i on of oper at or s w ho negot i at e food pr i ces co ll ec ti v elyto ac h ie v e g re a te r b a rg a in in g p o w e r a g a in s t m a n u f a cture rs a n d d is tr ib u to rs . I

d. at421. “G PO s gener al ly b arg ain fora l ow er p ri c e , b u t d o n o t a c tu a lly p u rc h a s e th e f o o d f o r re s a le to in s titu tio n s .” I d.
The P ar t i es i n this Appeal9 M ich a e ls is a m a n u f

a c tu re r o f

e g g a n d p o tato p ro d u c ts th a t se lls in b u lk , n a tio n w id e . I

d. I t i s the l ar ges t pr oducer of l i qui d eggs i n the U n ite d S ta te s . I

d. F ee s er s i s a r egi onal di s t r i but ort hatdi s t r i but es M i chae l s ’ s pr oduct s , and other s , t o oper at or s w i t hi n a 200- m i l e r adi us o f H a rr is b u rg , P e n n s y lv a n ia

. I d. Sodexo i s a mul t i nat i onal food s ervi ce managementcompanythats erves i ns ti tuti ons ar ound t he w o rl d

. I

d. I t s serv i ces i ncl ude pl anni ng m enus , or der i ng food, pr epar i ng and s erv ing m ea ls, and over s eei ng l abori s s ues . I ti s the la rg e s t p ri v a te p u rc h a s e r o f f o o d in th e w o rl d

. I

d. S o d ex o ow ns E n te g ra , a G P O

. I

d. at427.
Mich a e ls’s P ric in go

f Fo o d P ro d u c ts
M i chaels sel l s si xtypercent of i t s produ c ts atdev i at ed p ri ces. I d. at4 3 2

. I th a s o f

f e r e d d e v i a t e d p r i c i n g t o s e l f

- o p s s i n c e t h e m i d1990s and t o food s ervi ce managementcompani es , l i ke Sodexo, s i nce a t lea st 1 9 9 9

. “ [ O ]n a v e ra g e f ro m 2 0 0 0 u n til 2 0 0 4 , F e e se rs p a id $9. 56, or 59% m or e than [Sodexo] for[M i chae l s ’ s ] el even t op s el l i ng pr oduct s . ” I

d. at434. T h is pr i ci ng di ffe r ence w as des cr i bed as

“ s tu n n in g ” b yF e e s e rs ’s e x p e r t w itn e s s . Id

. T he devi at ed pr i ci ng So d e x o r e c e i v e d f

r o m M i c h a e l s w as noti ns t i tut i on- s peci fi c, s o Sodexo coul d “us e i t s l ow devi at ed pr i ce . . . t o w i n new acc ount s and t o keep curr entcus t om er s . ” I

d. at432.
C om pet i t i on betw een Fees ers and Sodexo
Fees er s s el l s food t o s el f-o p i ns t i tut i ons and food s ervi ceT he D i str ict C our tfound thatFees er s s ol d onl yt o s el f- op 4 in s titu tio n s , Fee sers , Inc. , 6 3 2 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 4 2 1 -2 2 . T h is fi ndi ng w as cl ear l yerr o n eous . T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s ow n fac t fin d ing d esc ri b ing F ee sers’s b u s in ess e x p lai n s tha t Fe ese rs di s t r i but ed food f

or W ood, a food s ervi ce management c o m p a n y . C o m

p a r e id

. ( “Fees ers o n lys el l s food t o s el f- op insti tuti o n s[.]”), w i th i d. at 42 1 n . 3 (“F ee sers w as th e p ri m ary di s t r i but or for t he W ood C om pany , ” a f ood s ervi ce management co m p an y . ). T h e Je w ish H o m e of G rea ter H arrisbu rg a n d S t. M ary ’s 5 C athol i c School bot h s w i t ched fr om Fees er s t o S o d ex o. Fees ers , I

nc. , 632 F. Supp. 2d at422. T he M eadow s s w i t ched f ro m S o d e x o to F e e s e rs . I d. 10 m a n a g em ent com pan i es. I d. a t 4 2 1 -2 2 . S o d e x o se lls f o o d in 4 c o n ju n c tio n w ith its f

o o d s e rv i c e m a n a g e m e n t s e rv ic e s . I d. at422. I ns t i tut i onal cus t om er s “r egul ar l ys w i t ch [be t w een] s elf-o p [and] m anage m ent , ” and a t leastt hr ee i ns t i tut i ons have s w i t ched be t w een F e e s e rs a n d S o d e x o . I d. B oth compani es r egul ar l ys eek s el f- op 5 b u s in e s s . I

d. Fees er s tr i es t o di s t r i but e for s el f- ops w hi l e Sodexo tr i es to c o n v e rt se lf

-o p s to f o o d se rv ice m a n a g e m e n t.
W h e n a sel f-op s w i t ches t o So dex o, i t rel i es on S od e x o to handl e al l di ni ng s ervi ces funct i ons , s uch as p rocur ementand d is tr ib u tio n o f

f o o d

. I d. S o d e x o itse lf

is n o t a d istrib u to r , b u t it d e c id e s w h ic h d is tr ib u to rs its c u s to m e rs w ill u s e . I d. T hus , w hen an i ns t i tut i on s w i t ches fr om s el f- op t o Sodexo, the i ncumbentdi s t r i but or w h o d is tr ib u te d f

o r t h e s e lf

-o p m a yb e re p la c e d

. I

d. B ec au se F ee sers cou l d b e dis placed byS od exo ’s cho sen dis t ri bu t o r i f S od exo w i ns a s el f- op’ s bus i nes s , t h e tw o compani es compet e “w hen a c us t om er cons i der s s w i t chi ng fr om s el f- op t o food servi ce m anage m ent , orvi ceW e r egar d t hi s i nferr ed fac tas hi ghl yques t i onabl e, but 6 t h e f i n d i n g d o e s n o t r i s e t o t h e l e v e l o f c l e a re r r o r . I n o u rv i e w, assu m ing that S o d ex o rep lace d F ee sers w ith an o ther d istri b u tor, Fees er s ’ s compet i t or w oul d be t he otherdi s t r i but or , notSodexo. F o o d s e rv ice m a n a g e m e n t co m p a n ies c o m p e te w ith 7 each o t her th ro u g h a form al R F P process t o w i n inst i tuti on s’ b u s in e s s . Fees ers , I

nc. , 63 2 F. Sup p. 2d at42 8. The RFP pr oces s i s us ual l yl i m i t ed t o food servi ce management c o m p a n ie s . I

d. T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o i dent i fi ed otherevi dence 8 s how i ng compet i t i on betw een F ees er s and Sodexo, i ncl udi ng S o d e x o ’s S E C f

ilin g s , Fees ers , I

nc. , 632 F. Supp. 2d at422, and i t s i n t e r n a l s tr a te g ic d o c u m e n ts , i d. a t 4 2 3 . N o n e o f th is 11 ver s a. ” I d. at430. A ccor di ngl y , Fees er s and Sodexo “c om pet e[d] for

6 t he s ame por t i on of an i ns t i tut i on’ s food s ervi ce budge t
. ” Id

. at420.
C o m p e tit io n b e tw e e n F e e se rs a n d S o d e x o o c c u rre d in f o rm a lly pr i ort o t he r eques tforpr op o sal ( “R FP”) pr oces s or di nar i l yr equi r ed byl arge i nst i tuti on s. I d. at42 8

. T o g row i t s cl i entbas e, Sodexo 7 i dent i fi es i nsti tut i ons thatm eeti t s cl i entpr ofi l e and then bui l ds re la tio n s h ip s w ith th o s e in s titu tio n s . I d. at428- 29. D ur i ng i nform al cont act s w i t h a pr os pect i ve i ns t i tut i onal cus t om er , Sodexo “gauge s the insti tuti o n ’s i n terest i n m an ag em en t and d eterm ines w h ethe r th ere are any par t i cul arpr obl ems t o be s ol ved. ” I d. a t 4 2 8

. If th e in stitu tio n is in ter e ste d in m a n a g e m e n t, it w ill th e n p u t o u t a R F P a n d S o d e x o w ill f o llo w th ro u g h in th a t p ro c e s s . I d. A si de from seeki ng new cl i ents , Sodexo al s o t out s i t s acc es s t o di s count ed fo ods t o i t s exi s t i ng cus t om er s t hatut i l i ze i t for pr epar at i on and or der i ng of food, butnot f o r d is tr ib u tio n . I

d. at42 9. T his i s don e, i n p art , t o en cou rage tho se c u s to m e rs to s w itc h to S o d e x o ’s c h o s e n d is tr ib u to r. I d. 8evidence st at e d t hat Sod exo regar ded anydis t ri bu t or as a c o m p e tito r. I

d. at422- 23 ( not i ng thatSodexo’ s S E C fi l i ngs i den t i fi ed low er overal l cost s of foo d s ervi ce m anag em ent as a m e a n s o f

p ro m o tin g it s e lf

o v e r se lf

o p e ra tio n ); i d. at425 (“ S o d e x [ o ]’s stra teg ic p lan n in g d o c u m e n ts d o n o t sp e c if ica lly m en ti o n d istri b u tors as c o m p eti tors[.]”). W e r ever s ed i n a 2-1 de ci s i on. T he di s s entconcl uded 9 t hat Sod exo and F eeser s w ere no ti n actual com peti t i on becau se t hey “d[i d] not s el l t he s ame pr oduct s . ” Fees ers , I nc. , 498 F. 3d at220 ( J or dan, J

. , di s s ent i ng)

. I n r eac hi ng thatconcl us i on, t he d iss e n t e x p lain e d th a t F e e se rs “ re s[ o ld ] . . . u n p re p a re d f o o d s to i t s i ns t i tut i onal cl i ent s , ” w her eas Sodexo “pr epar e[d] m eal s , and 12 P rocedu ralHist ory O n M ar ch 17, 2004, Fees er s s oughta dec l ar at oryj udgm ent s t at i ng t hat ( 1) M i chae l s unl aw ful l ydi s cr i m i nat ed i n pr i ce unde r§ 2( a) of the R PA bys el l i ng egg and pot at o pr oduct s t o S o dexo at s i gnifi cant l yl ow erpr i ces than i tdi d t o Fees er s and ( 2) Sodexo v iolated § 2 (f) o f th e R P A b y k n o w ing lyind u cing tho se d iscri m inato ry s al es . 15 U

. S. C

. § 13( a) and ( f)

. Fees ers also s oughtperm anent i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f

u n d e r§ 1 6 o f

th e Cl a y t o n Act

. 1 5 U. S

. C. § 2 6

. On M ay4, 2006, t he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm ent f orthe defe ndants, concl udi ng t hatFees er s had s at i s fi ed the fi r s tt hr ee el ement s of a pr i m a fa ci e case o f p ri ce di s cr i m i nat i on, butnott he four t h el ement , compet i t i ve i nj ury . “The D i s t r i ctC our tw a s c o ncerned t hat[Sodexo] and Fees er s [w e] r e not at t he s ame ‘ funct i onal l evel ’ and [ w e ]r e th e re f

o re n o t in ‘a c tu a l c o m p e titio n ’ i n th e s a m e m a rk e t.” Fees ers , I

nc. , 4 9 8 F .3 d a t 2 1 4

. Fees er s appea l ed and thi s C our t r ever s ed. W e hel d t hatthe 9s [ol d] t he pr epar ed m eal s t o i ndi vi dual cus t om er s . ” I d. at218. ( J or dan, J

. , di s s ent i ng)

. T he m aj or i t y di s agr eed, not i ng t hat“a fac t fi nder coul d concl ude t hat Sodex[o] s [ol d] unpr epar ed food to its c u s to m e rs” b e c a u se so m e o f S o d e x o ’s a g re e m e n ts w ith i ns t i tut i onal cl i ent s di d notchar ge for“‘ pr epar ed m eal s , ’ but r atherfort he cos t of unpr epar ed food a nd s uppl i es , the cos tof l abor , and a managementfee

. ” Id

. at215. T h e p ri o r d e c is io n is e x p la in e d in S e c tio n IV (A ), i nfr a . 10 13 D i s t r i ct C our thad appl i ed the w r ong s t andar d i n concl udi ng that F e e s e rs a n d S o d e x o w e re n o t in c o m p e t itio n . Id

. at208. T he pane l expl ai ned the pr opers t andar d and r em an ded the ca s e t o t he D i s t r i ct C ou rtfor further proceedings. 10
O n r emand, aft era benc h tr ia l , t he D i s t r i ctC our tent er ed ju d g m e n t f

o r F e e se rs a n d e n

jo in e d M ich a e ls f

ro m e n g a g in g in u n law f u l p ric e d is c r im in a tio n . M ich a e ls th e n su sp e n d e d a ll sa les to Fees er s . I n r es pons e, Fees er s s oughtan orde r of cont empt and a p e rm a n e n t in

ju n c tio n f

o rb id d in g M ich a e ls f

ro m re f u sin g to d e a l w ith F e e s e r s . O n M a y2 6 , 2 0 0 9 , the D istric t C o u rt h e ld M ich a e ls in co n tem p t and en

joine d itfro m ref

u sing to “s ell it s p rod u cts to F ee sers o n the s am e term s as th eyare s o ld to [ S o d ex o ], so lon g as F ee sers ot herw i s e meet s i t s s t andar ds as a cus tom er.” M i chae l s and Sodexo now ap p eal t he D i s t r i ctC ourt ’ s j udgm entand the perm anent i nj unct i on. II.

“‘ C om pet i t i ve i nj ury ’ [under§ 2( a) of t he R PA ] i s es t abl i s hed

. . . by pr oof of ‘ a s ubs t ant i al pr i ce di s cr i m i nat i on betw een com pet i ng p u r c h a s e rs o v e rt i me . ’ ” Fees ers , I nc. , 498 F. 3d at213 ( quot i ng Fa llsB eca us e Fees er s cannots at i s fy the fi r s tel ement 11 requ i red t o sho w com peti t i ve inj ury , w e need no tdis cuss 14 C i t y Indus. , 4 6 0 U

. S

. at 4 3 5 ) (fo o tno te om itted) (em p h asis in o ri g inal). “Fees er s does notneed t o pr ove that[M i chae l s ’ s ] pr i ce di s cr i m i nat i on act ual l y h a rm e d c o m p e titio n , i

. e. , thatthe di s cr i m i nat orypr i ci ng caus ed Fees er s t o l os e cus t om er s t o Sodex[o]. R ather , Fees er s need pr ove onl yt hat( a) i tcompeted w ith Sodex[o] t o s el l food and ( b) [ th a t] th e re w a s p ri c e d is c ri m in a tio n o v e r t im e b y[ M ic h a e ls ].” F ee s ers , I

nc. , 49 8 F. 3d at 21 3 ( foo t no t e om i t t ed) (em ph asi s in o ri g in a l)

. T o d e te r m in e w h e th e r F e e se rs c o m p e ted w ith S o d e x o to se ll f o o d , “th e re lev a n t q u e stio n is w h e th e r [ th e ] tw o c o m p a n ies ‘[ w e ]re in economi c r eal i t y act i ng on t he s ame di s t r i but ion level

. ’ ” I d. at214 ( quot i ng St elw agon M

f g. C o. v. T

a rm ac Roof

i ng Sys

. , I

nc. , 63 F. 3d 1 2 6 7 , 1 2 7 2 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 5 )). R e c o g n izin g th a t th e p h ra se “ e c o n o m ic r eal i t y ” pr ovi des l i t t l e gui dance i n how t o appr oac h the compet i t i on i n q u i r y , t h i s Co u r t , i n t h e p r i o r a p p e a l i n t h i s c a s e , e x p l a i n e d t h a tt wo par t i es ar e i n compet i t i on onl yw her e, aft era “car eful anal y s i s of ea ch p a rty ’s c u sto m e rs,” w e d e ter m in e th a t th e p a rties a re “ e a c h d ir e c tly aft ert he s ame dol l ar . ” Fees ers , I nc. , 4 9 8 F. 3 d a t2 1 4 ( q u o t i n g M

. C. M f g. C o . v. Tex. Foundr i es , I nc. , 5 1 7 F

. 2 d 1 0 5 9 , 1 0 6 8 n . 2 0 (5th C ir

. 1 9 7 5 )). W e r efe rt o t hi s dol l ar - for

- dol l aranal y s i s as t he compet i ng pur chas err equi r ement
. T he Supr eme C our t ’ s gui dance i n V olvo Truc ks , 546 U

. S. at179- 80 , an d t hi s C our t ’ s pr ece denti n Tol edo Mack , 530 F. 3d at226- 29, compel us t o concl ude thatFees er s and Sodexo w er e not compet i ng pur chas er s . T hus , Fees er s cannots at i s fy t he fi r s t el e mentr e qu i r e d t o s ho w c ompe t i t i ve i nj ury , a nd i t s RPA c l a i ms mu s tf

a i l a s a ma t t e ro f

l a w. 11w hetheri texper i ence d pr i ce di s cr i m i nat i on overt i m e. 15 A.
In a p p li ca ti o n , the c o m p eti n g p u rch ase r req u ir em en t w il l vary b as ed on the natur e of the mar ketand the t i m i ng of the compet i t i on. I n a bi d m arket , i f the com pet i t i on betw een the fa vor ed and di s favor ed pur chas eroccur s befor e the pur chas e of the goods fr om t he s el l er , t hen t he di s favor ed pur chas ercannots how t hat i t and t he favor ed pur chas er w e re c o m p e tin g p u rc h a s e rs . V olvo Tr ucks , 546 U

. S. at178- 79

. T h is rul e pr event s t he appl i cat i o n of the R PA t o m arket s w her e the “al l egedl yfavor ed pur chas er s [bea r ] l i t t l e r es embl ance to [the] l ar ge i ndepende ntdepart m ent s t or es or chai n oper at i ons ” thatthe R PA w as in te n d e d to ta rg e t, i d. a t1 8 1 , a n d h e l p s “ c o n s t ru e t h e [ RP A]

‘ cons i s t ent l yw i t h t he br oaderpol i ci es o f t he ant i t rus tl aw s , ’ ” i d. ( quot i ng B r ooke G r oup v. B r ow n & W i l l i am s on Tobacco C o rp. , 509 U .S . 2 0 9 , 2 2 0 (1 9 9 3 ))

. I n pr ac t i c e , t h e ru l e , l i k e o t h e rr e s t r i c t i o n s o n th e r e a c h o f the R P A , pr event s t he unpr i nci pl ed appl i cat i on of the s t atut e. I ndeed, b e c a u se th e R P A o f

ten h a s “ a n ti c o m p e tit iv e ” e f f e c ts th a t “p ro m o te r athert han

. . . pr eventm onopol i s t i c pr i ci ng pr act i ces , ” Sm all B usi ness and the R obi ns on- P atm an A ct : Hear i ngs bef or e the Sp ec ial Subcom m i t t ee on Sm al lB us i nes s and the Robi ns on- P atm an A ct of the H ou se S el ect C om m i t t ee on Sm all B usi ness , 91s tC ong. 146- 47 ( 1969) (te stim o n yo f

R ich a rd A . P o sn e r), th e S u p re m e C o u rt, i n se e k in g to co n strue the s t atut e cons i s t ent l yw i t h the br oaderpol i ci es of the a n titru st la w s, h a s re p e a ted lylim ited its re a c h b y :

• E x p a n d in g th e m e a n s th ro u g h w h ich R P A d e f e n d a n tsA ccord Fall s C i t y Indus. , 460 U

. S. at451- 52 ( vaca t i ng 12 judgmentt hatdefe ndantdi d nothave a m eet i ng compet i t i on 16 c a n a ttac k th e “ c o m p e tit io n ” e le m e n t o f a p rim a f

a c ie c a s e o f p ri c e d is c ri m in a tio n , Texaco v

. H as br ouck , 496 U

. S. 543, 5 6 1 (1990) ( “A s uppl i erneed nots at i s fythe rig o ro us re q u ire m e n ts o f th e c o st ju stif

ica tio n d e f

e n se in o rd e r to p ro v e th a t a p a rticu lar f u n c tio n a l d is c o u n t is r eas onabl e and a ccor di ngl ydi d notcaus e anys u b s t a n t i al lessen ing o f c o m p eti ti o n b etw ee n a w h o lesaler’s cus t om er s and t h e s uppl i er ’ s di r ectcus t om er s . ”) (fo o tno te om itted);

• Focus i ng the compet i t i on i nqui r yon “i nt erbr and compet i t i on, ” V

olvo Tr ucks , 546 U

. S. at180;

• E xpl ai ni ng thatthe R PA does not“ban a l l pr i ce di ffe r ence s char ged t o di ffe r entpur chas er s of comm odi t i es of l i ke gr ad e and qua l i t y , ” i d. at176 ( quot i ng B r ooke G r oup Ltd. , 5 0 9 U

. S

. at 22 0 );

• “[R]e s i s t [i ng] i nt erpr et at i on[s ] [of the R PA ] gear ed m o re to th e p ro tec tio n o f e x is tin g c o m p e tit o rs th a n to t he s t i m ul at i on of compet i t i on, ” V olvo Tr ucks , 54 6 U. S. at181 ( emphasi s om i t t ed) ; and,

• “ [ R ] e c o g n i[ z in g ] [ th a t] th e rig h t o f a se ller to m e e t a l ow ercompet i t i ve pr i ce i n good fa i t h m aybe the p ri m arym ea n s o f rec o n cil ing the [R P A ] w ith the m o re gener al purpos es o f the ant i t rus tl aw s , ” G r e a t A tl. & P ac. Tea C o. v . FTC , 440 U

. S. 6 9 , 8 2 n . 16 ( 1979) ( i nt erpr et i ng R PA t o pr ovi de r obus t m eet i ng co m p eti ti o n d ef

en se). 12d e f e n s e ); C a s s S u n s te in , Int erpret i ngStat utes i n the R egu l atory S ta te , 1 0 3 H a rv . L . R e v . 4 0 5 , 4 8 7 (1 9 8 9 ) (“ C o u rts s h o u ld n a rro w lyc o n stru e sta tu tes th a t se rv e n o p la u s ib le p u b lic p u rp o s e , a n d a m o u n t m e re l y t o in te re s t- g ro u p tr a n s f e rs . . . . T h[i s ] i dea he l ps expl ai n a numbe r of de ci s i ons i n ar eas of economi c r egul at i on, s uch as

. . . the cour t s ’ appr oach t o the R o b in s o n -P a tm a n A c t.” ) ( c itin g R o b e rt H . B o rk , T he A nti trust P a ra d o x : A P o licy a t W a r w ith Itse lf

4 0 9 -10 (19 7 8 )). 17 T h is C o ur thas dut i ful l yfol l ow ed the Supr eme C our t ’ s l ead by narr ow l y cons t rui ng t he R PA

. I n Tol edo M ack , we e x p l a i n e d t h a twe w ill “ n a rro w ly in te r p re t” th e R P A , ev e n if d o in g so w ill re su lt i n “el evat [i ng] form overs ubs t ance . ” To l e d o Mack , 530 F. 3d at228 n .1 7

. W h i l e th e c o mpe t i ng pur chas err equi r ementhas i t s r oot s i n FTC v . Mo rto n Sa lt , 334 U

. S. 37, 46- 51 ( 1948) , t he m os tr ece ntdeci s i ons di s cus s i ng t hatr equi r ementar e V olvo Tr ucks and Tol edo M ack . B o th deci s i ons emphasi zed thatpr ovi ng “s ubs t ant i al pr i ce di s cr i m i nat i on b etw ee n co m p eti n g p u rch ase rs overt i m e, ” V olvo Tr ucks , 546 U

. S. at 179 ( quot i ng Fall

s C i t y Indus. , 4 6 0 U

. S

. at 43 5 ) (em p h asis o m itted), r equi r es acc ount i ng fort he t i m i ng of the al l eged com pet i t i on and the n a tu re o f th e m a rk e t. V

olvo Tr ucks , 5 4 6 U .S . at 1 7 8 -7 9 ; s ee Tol edo Mack , 530 F. 3d at228.
I n V olvo Tr ucks , the Supr eme C o u rtr ej ect ed an i nfer ence of co m p eti ti v e inju ryw h ere th e p lai n ti ff , R ee d er-S im co (“R ee d er” ), c o u ld n o t s h o w th a t it w a s a c o m p e tin g p u rc h a s e r. V olvo Tr ucks , 546 U

. S. at179- 80. R eede r w as a V ol vo deal er w ho compet ed w i t h ot her d e a ler s (b o th V o lv o b ra n d a n d o th e rs) th ro u g h a c u sto m e r-s p e c if ic bidd i ng process for s al es t o indi vidual s seeki ng cust om -bui l tt rucks.18 I d. at169. R eede ral l eged that V o lvo s ol d trucks t o ot herV ol vo d ea lers at u n law fu ll yd iscri m inato ryp ri ce s, g iving tho se o ther d ea lers an unfa i radvant age i n s el l i ng t o pr os p ect i ve cus t om er s . T he c u sto m e r-s p e c if

ic b id d in g p ro c e ss b e g a n w ith th e c u sto m e r sta tin g its sp ec ifi ca ti o n s an d inv it ing b ids f rom d ea lers i t had se le c te d

. I d. at 170. T he s el ect ed dea l er s w oul d s ubm i tbi ds t o t he cus t om erand the d e a ler t hat w on t he bi d w ou l d arrange for t he m anu facturer , i n th is c a s e , V o lv o , to b u ild th e tru c k f o r t h e c u s to m e r. I

d. L i ke t he devi at ed pr i ci ng s y s t em of food m anufa ctur er s , i tw as comm on fortruck m a n u f a c tu re rs to o f

f e r “ c u s to m e r- s p e c if

ic d is c o u n ts to th e ird e a le rs .” I d. P ri or t o sub m i t t i ng a bid t o a cu st om er, a V olvo dea l er w ou l d ask V o lv o if it c o u ld g e t a d is c o u n t f o r t h e c u s to m e r. I

d. V o lv o w o u ld th e n d e c id e o n a c a se -b y -c a se b a sis w h a t d isc o u n t itw o u ld g ra n t a par t i cul arcus t om erbas ed on fa ct or s l i ke i ndus t r y - w i de demand and w h e th e r th e c u s to m e r h a d p re v io u s ly p u rc h a s e d f ro m V o lv o . I

d. W h i l e t h e d i s c o u n tv a r i e d b a s e d o n m a n y f a c t o r s , th e d e a l e r s a l w a ys knew w h at d i s count s t heycoul d offe ra cus t om erbefor e s ubm i t t i ng th e irb id s to th e c u s to m e r. See i d.
T he s peci fic quest i on pr es ent ed i n t he ca s e w as w hether“a m anufa ctur eroffe r i ng i t s deal er s di ffe r entw hol es al e pr i ces m aybe hel d l i abl e for pr i ce di s cr i m i nat i ons pr os cr i bed byR obi ns on- Pat m an, ab sen t a sh o w ing that the m an u fa cture r discrim inated b etw ee n d ea lers c o n te m p o ra n e o u s ly co m p e tin g to re s e ll to th e s a m e re ta il c u s to m e r.” Id

. a t1 6 9

. I n d e c i d i n g t h a tq u e s t i o n i n t h e ne ga t i ve , t h e S u p r e me C our tconcl uded thatR eede rcou l d notes t abl i s h an i nfer ence of compet i t i ve i nj ur ybas ed on the t i m i ng of the compet i t i on betw een the deal er s and the natur e of t he mar ket , R eede r ’ s evi dence of compet i t i ve i n j u r y , a n d t h e g o a l s o f

th e RP A.T he fi r s t t ype, evi dence of hea d- t o- head c om par i s ons 13 betw een R eede rand otherV ol vo deal er s , i s notr el evanti n t he i ns t antcas e. R eede r ’ s evi dence s how ed onl y“tw o i ns t ance s over[a] fi ve y earcour s e” w her e it b i d agai ns totherV ol vo deal er s , s o cal l ed hea d- t o- hea d compar i s ons : O ne i ns t ance w here it and anot herV ol vo deal err ece i ved the s ame di s count and R eede rlost t o t he otherdeal erbeca us e the cus t om erhad 19 T he t i m i ng of the compet i t i on betw een the dea l er s and t he natur e of the mar ketw er e cr i t i cal t o the Supr eme C our t ’ s r eas oni ng. A t t he i ni t i al s t age of

compet i t i on i n t he bi d m arket , w her e deal ers w ere co m p e tin g to w in the ri g h t t o su b m ita b id to a cu stom er, “c o m p eti ti o n [w a]s n o t aff ec ted b yd iffe ren ti al pr icin g [b ec au se] a d ea ler i n the c o m p eti ti v e b idd ing p ro c e s s ap p roa ch [e d ] V o lvo fo r a p ric e c o n c e ss io n . . . o n lya f ter it h a [ d ] b e e n se lec ted b ya re tail cus t om ert o s ubm i ta bi d. ” I d. at17 8-79. Prospect i ve cu st om ers cho se w h ich d ea lers co u ld su b m itb id s b ase d o n a v arietyo f f ac tors “i ncl udi ng t he exi s t ence vel non of a r el at i ons hi p betw een the pot ent i al bi d d e ra nd t he [pr os pect i ve] cus t om er , geogr aphy , and r eput at i on. ” I d. at17 9. A ft er the p rospect i ve cust om er ch ose w ho cou l d subm i tbids, t he r el evantm arketnarr ow ed to t he fe w deal er s w ho w er e chos en: “O nce a r et ai l cus t om erhas chos en the part i cul ar deal er s fr om w hi ch i tw i l l s ol i ci tbi ds , ‘ t he re l evant m arket becomes l i m i t ed t o t he nee ds an d d em an d s o f a p arti cu lar en d u ser, w ith o n lya h an d f u l of d ea lers co m p eti ng fort he ul t i m at e s al e. ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng R e e d e r - S i mc o GMC, I nc. v. V olvo GM Heavy Truc k C or

p. , 3 7 4 F .3 d 7 0 1 , 7 1 9 (8th C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ) (H an sen , J. , d issen ti n g )).
T h e S u p re m e C o u rtw as a lso u n im p resse d w ith R ee d er’s evi dence purp o rt ing t o s how compet i t i ve i nj ury . R eede rpr oduced t hr ee types of evi dence t o s uppor t i t s al l egat i ons . T he tw o t ypes of 13p rev iou slyb o u g h t from the o ther d ea ler, an d o n e ins tanc e w h ere it an d th e o p p o s in g V o lv o d e a ler re c e iv e d m a tch in g d isc o u n ts f ro m V o lv o a n d n e ith e r w o n th e b id

. V olvo Tr ucks , 546 U

. S. at 172. O n t hi s evi dence , t he Supr eme Court not ed t hat R eede r s h o w ed the “l os s of onl yone s al e” a nd t hat“R eede rand the o th e r d e a le r r e c e iv e d th e s a m e c o n c e s s io n ” in th a t in s ta n c e . I d. a t 1 8 0

. In th e o th e r in sta n c e o f h e a d -to -h e a d c o m p e tit io n , b o th V ol vo deal er s r ece i ved t he same conce s s i on and nei therw on t he b id

. I d. T he Supr eme C o u r tconcl uded that“i f pr i ce di s cr i m i nat i on betw een t w o pur chas er s exi s t ed atal l , [a s al e that w oul d have r es ul t ed in $30, 000 m or e i n gr os s pr ofi t s for R e e d e r] w a s n o t o f

su c h m a g n itu d e a s to a f f e c t su b sta n tially c o m p e titio n b e tw e e n R e e d e r a n d th e ‘f a v o re d ’ V o lv o d e a le r.” I d. N ot abl y , in thi s cas e, Fees er s pr oduced e vi dence

14 s h o w in g th a t M ic h a e ls c o n s is te n tly f a v o re d S o d e x o . Feesers , I nc. , 632 F. S u p p . 2 d at434. T hi s t ype of e vi dence w as not 20 evi dence r el evantt o t he i ns t antcas e w er e R eede r ’ s “compar i s ons of [ d isc o u n ts] [ it] re c e iv e d f o r f o u r su c c e ss f

u l b id s a g a in st n o n -Vol vo d ea lers, w ith la rg er [ d isco u n ts] o ther su cc essf u l V o lvo d ea lers re ce ived fo r di

f f er ent s al es on w hi ch [i t ] di d notbi d ( pur chas e- t opur chas e compar i s ons ) , ” V olvo Tr ucks , 5 4 6 U .S . at 1 7 7 (e m p h a sis in or i gi nal ) , and “c om par i s ons of [di s count s ] offe r ed t o [i t ] i n connec t i on w ith se v e ra l u n su c c e ss f u l b id s a g a in st non- V

olvo deal er s , w i t h gr eat er c o n c e ss io n s a c c o rd e d o th e r V o lv o d e a ler s w h o c o m p e ted su c c e ss f u lly for differ ent sal es on w hich [i t ] did no t b id (offer- t o-purchase c o m p a ri s o n s ),” i d. a t 1 7 7 -7 8 (e m p h a sis in o rig in a l)

. T hes e tw o types of ev i den ce did no tcreat e an inference of co m peti t i ve inj urybecau se ( 1 ) t h e a l l e g e d pr i c e d i s c r i mi n a t i o n d i d n o to c c u rf o rt h e s a me cus t om erand ( 2) R eede rdi d n o t atte m ptt o s how t hatotherV ol vo d e a le rs w e re c o n s is te n tly f a v o re d

. Id

. at178. 14pr oduced i n V olvo Tr ucks , s o the Supr eme C our tnever expl ai ned w hetherbot h oronl yone of i t s r eason s forr ej ect i ng th e in f e re n c e o f c o m p e tit iv e in

ju ry n e e d b e re c tifie d in o rd e r to i nfercompet i t i ve i nj ury . 546 U

. S

. at 179 n. 3. A s w e l at er expl ai n, t hi s C our t , i n Tol edo M ack , r ej ect ed t he ar gum entt hat e v id e n c e sh o w in g th a t a c e rta in p u rc h a se r w a s c o n sis ten tly favor ed w as s uffi ci entt o i nfercompet i t i ve i nj uryi n a bi d m arket w h e re th e c o m p e titio n o c c u rr e d p ri o r t o th e a c tu a l s a le

. Tol edo Mack , 530 F. 3d at228- 29. 21 T h e S u p re m e C o u rt a lso si g n a le d th a t itw a s u n in ter e ste d in perm i t t i ng i nn ov at i ve ap pli cat i on s of t he R P A and w ou l d resi st “interp retati o n [s] g ea red m o re to the p rotec ti o n of exi s t i ng c ompet i t ors than t o t he s t i m ul at i on of com pet i t i on . ” I

d. at18 1 (em ph asi s in o rig in a l). It also n o ted th a t th e c u sto m tru c k m a r k e t b o re “ little re se m b lan c e to [ th e ] lar g e in d e p e n d e n t d e p a rtm e n t sto re s o r c h a in o p e ra tio n s ” th a t th e R P A o ri g in a lly in te n d e d to ta rg e t. I d.
T hi s C our tus ed s i m i l arr eas oni ng i n Tol edo M ack

. 530 F. 3d at 226- 29. T hatcas e had fac t s s i m i l art o V olvo Truc ks— T ol edo, a M ack t ruck dea l er , w oul d s ubm i t bi ds t o pr os pect i ve cus t om er s w ho w i s hed to p u rc h a s e c u s to m iz e d M a c k tru c k s . I d. at209. I n cr eat i ng a bi d, T ol edo w oul d s eek outa “t r ans act i on- s peci fi c di s count[fr om M ack] know n as ‘ s al es as s i s t ance . ’ ” I d. “The am o untof s al es as s i s t ance [ M a c k o f

f e re d ] va rie [ d ] ac c o rd in g to th e n a tu re o f th e re latio n sh ip betw een t he deal er and t he cus t om er , t he num ber of t rucks orde r ed, pot ent i al compet i t i on, and other fac t or s . ” I d. T ol edo sued M ack unde r t he R PA , cl ai m i ng t hati tcons i s t ent l yr ece i ved l es s s al es assi sta nce t han otherM ack d eal ers . I n aff i r m i ng t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entfor22 t he def endant , M ack, on t he R PA cl ai m , t hi s C our t expl ai ned thatt he ti m ing o f c o m p eti ti o n an d the na ture of the m ark et are crit ical fa ctors to c o n sid e r w h e n d e ter m in in g w h e th e r th e p la in tiff c a n sh o w th a t it w as a compet i ng pur chas erof a f avor ed pur chas er . W e conc l uded that beca us e t he compet i t i on betw een M ack deal er s occurr ed duri n g the b id d in g p ro c e ss , an d n o t at th e ti m e o f th e a c tu a l sa le, T o led o c o u ld nots at i s fy t he com pet i ng pur chas er r equi r ement orthe tw o pur chas er re q u ire m e n t:
B ecause n o sal e t akes place unti l a cust o m e r a c c epts a d e a ler ’s b id , the a m o u n t o f sa les a s s is tan c e M a c k is w i l l i ng t o pr ovi de t o a part i cul ar d ea ler i s partof an offe r by M a c k t o s e l l , n o ta s a l e . Re g a r d l e s s o f a ny compet i t i on betw een the dea l ers d ur i ng the bi ddi ng p r o c e s s , o n l y a d e a l e rw h o s e b i d i s a c c e p t e d b y a cus t om erw i l l actual lybuya truck fr om M ack. T herefore, on l yon e sal e, no ttw o, actuall yres ult s. I d. a t 2 2 8

. T ol edo, unl i ke the pl ai nt i ff i n V olvo Tr ucks , di d notoffe r evi dence o f head- t o- head c om pet i t i on betw een i tand otherM ack d e a le rs . I

d. at215. B ut i tdi d pr ovi de expe r tt es t i m onyr egar di ng “the aver age a m o unt s of s al es as s i s t ance M ack of fer ed t o T ol edo as compar ed w i t h t he ave r age a m ountof s al es as s i s t ance M ack of fer ed t o ot her[M ack] deal er s , ” i

. e. , evi dence s how ing thatM ack c o n s is te n tly f

a v o re d o th e r d e a le rs a s c o m p a re d to T o le d o . Id

. T hat evi dence w as r ej ect ed bythi s C our tas i r r elev antbecaus e eve n i f the

“ a m o u n t o f

s a le s a s s is ta n c e M a c k o f f e r[ e d ] t o e a c h d e a le r . . . d et erm i ne[d] w hethera cus t om ercho[s e] t o acc epta bi d fr om one M a c k d e a ler o r an o th e r, M a c k d o e s n o t se ll a tru c k to th e d e a ler u n til23 t he cus t om eractuall y selec ts a deal er ’ s bi d. ” I d. a t 2 2 8 . T h u s, o n ly o n e s a le , n o t tw o , re s u lte d f ro m th e c o m p e titio n . Id

. T h is w a s tru e in par tbeca us e the sal e w as di vor ced f r om the compet i t i on and Tol edo coul d nots how t hat i t w as a com pet i ng pur chas ervi s - à- vi s otherM ack d e a le rs . See i d.
Fi nal l y , t he Tol edo M

ack C our t not ed t hat , l i ke V olvo Tr ucks , “the al l eged pr i ce di s cr i m i nat i on d[i d] not i m pl i cat e t h e ori gi nal p u rpo se o f th e R P A b ec au se ‘the all eg ed lyfa v o red p u rch ase rs [w e]re deal er s w i t h l i t t l e r es embl ance t o l ar ge i ndepende ntdepart m ents t or es o r ch ain o p era ti o n s. ’” I d. at227 ( quot i ng V

olvo Tr ucks , 546 U

. S. at 1 8 1 ).
B.
W hi l e thi s C our t ’ s concl us i on i n Tol edo M ack u n d o u b ted ly tur ned on the fa ctt hat“one s al e, not t w o, actual l yr es ul t [ed] , ” Tol edo Mack , 530 F. 3d at 228, i t w as not r eac hed bya s i m pl e appl i cat i on of t he R PA ’ s t w o pur chas err equi r ement
. I t w as r eac hed thr ough the co m b ined ef

fe ct of the R P A ’s tw o p u rc h a s e r a n d co m p eti ti v e inju ry re q u ir e m e n ts

— i.e ., th e c o m p e tin g p u rc h a s e r r e q u i r e m e n t. I d. ; s ee Fa lls C i t y Indus. , 460 U

. S. at435 ( expl ainin g com pet i ng pur chas er re q u ire m e n t); V

olvo Tr ucks , 5 4 6 U .S . a t 1 7 9 (s a m e ).
I n T o ledo M ack w e hel d thatbeca us e the compet i t i on among deal er s forpr os pect i ve cus t om erbus i nes s occurr ed bef or e the p u rch ase o f th e truc k to b e so ld to the cu stom er b ythe w inn ing d ea ler, th e re lev a n t m a rk e t f

o r th e sa le to th e c u sto m e r w a s alre a d ylim ited to o n e a t th e tim e th e m a n u f a c tu re r so ld th e d e a le r th e tru c k

. See Tol edo Mack , 530 F. 3d at228. B eca us e the r el evantm ark et w as o n lyone24 deal e r ma k i n g o n e p u r c h a s e f r o m th e ma n u f

a c tu r e r f o r r e s a l e t o one cu stom er, the tw o p u rch ase r req u ir em en t co u ld no t b e sati sf ie d

. See i d. T h u s , t h i s Co u r tr e j e c t e d T o l e d o ’ s RP A c l a i m f o r l a c k o f

t wo pur chas er s , w hi ch w as bas ed on t he l ack of a compet i t i ve mar ket , i

. e. th e la c k o f

a c o m p e tin g p u rc h a s e r. S e e id

. T h is c o n c lu sio n c o m p o rts w i t h M

. C

. M

f g. , 5 1 7 F .2 d a t 1 0 6 5 , the d e c isio n re lied u p o n b yth is C our ti n To l e d o M

ack , 5 3 0 F. 3d at228, and i n thi s C our t ’ s pr i or d e c is io n in th is c a s e , Fees ers , I nc. , 498 F. 3d at214 ( instruct i ng the D i s t r i ct C our t t o appl y t he Fi fth C i r cui t ’ s t es t t o “det erm ine w h ether S o d e x [ o ] a n d F e e s e r s c o mp e t e t o r e s e l l f o o d p r o d u c t s t o t he s a me g r o u p o f c u s t o me r s ” ) ( ci t i ng M

. C

. M f g. C o. , 5 1 7 F

. 2 d at 10 6 8 n . 2 0 ). I n addi t i on, t he Supr em e C our t ’ s r eas oni ng i n V olvo Tr ucks fur t her c o n f irm s o u r u n d e rsta n d in g o f th e c o m p e tin g p u rc h a se r re q u ire m e n t.
I n M

. C

. M

f g. , tw o co m p an ies, U ni ver s al and H / R , m anufa ctur ed lif tin g p lu g s f

o r s a le s to th e g o v e rn m e n t. M

. C

. M f g. , 517 F. 2d at1061. B ot h compani es pur chas ed “unf i ni s hed pl u g cast i ngs ” fr om T exas F o u n d ri e s a n d th o s e c a s tin g s w e re u s e d to c re a te th e lif tin g p lu g s . I

d. B ot h compani es w oul d pur chas e ca s t i ngs aft ert heyhad w on a contr act w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t. I

d. at1067. I n i t s compl ai nt , U ni ver s al al l eged t hatH / R and Texas Fo u n d ri es vi ol at ed the R PA beca us e ( 1) T exas F o u n d rie s q u o ted a lo w e r p ric e to H /R th a n U n iv e rsa l f o r th e ir r es pect i ve bi ds fora gover nm ent contr act and H / R w on thatcontr act ( t h e “ 1 9 7 1 C o n tr a c t” ), i d. at1061- 62, 1066- 67, and ( 2) T exas Foundr i es s ol d unfi ni s hed pl ug cas t i ngs t o U ni ver s al ata hi gherpr i ce in a s e p a ra te c o n tr a c t (th e “ 1 9 7 0 C o n tr a c t E x te n s io n ” ). I d. at1065- 66. U ni ver s al ar gued thatthe pr i ces i tr ece i ved i n the 1970 C ont r act E xt ens i on w er e unl aw ful l y d iscri m i nat oryas compar ed t o t he pr i ces H /R rec eive d in th e 1 9 7 1 C o n tr ac t. In d o ing so , U n iversa l’ s al l egati on s app eared t o s at i sfy t he tw o p urchaser r equ i rem ent becauseSee M

. C

. M f g. , 517 F. 2d at1066 ( “Even i f the s al es at 15 di ffe r entpr i ces ar e con tem por aneous , i nvol ve goods of l i ke gr ade a nd qual i t y , t he pr i ce di s t i nct i on i s notj us t i fi ed bygood bus i nes s caus e, and i t caus es i nj ury t o t he d isad vant age[ d] pur chas er , r ecove r y under t he A cti s pr ecl uded abs entpr oof that the p ri ce v arian ce d etri m en tal lyaf fe cted co m p eti ti o n . ”). 25 t he tw o compani es w er e both pur chas i ng the s ame t ype of unf i ni s hed pl ug cas t i ng fr om T exas Foundr i es . T hi s app ea r ance , how ever , w as m i s l eadi ng beca us e the contr act s fr om w hi ch U ni ver s al ’s purpor t ed injuries flo w ed w ere d ist inct m ark ets o p en o n lyto a s ing le pro d u ce r. See i d. at 1 0 6 7 . H /R an d U n iversa l w ere n o t com p eti n g p u rch ase rs beca us e the 1970 C ont r actE xt ens i on and the 1 9 7 1 C ontr acteac h

“ re present ed a sep arat e, dis t i nct m arketop en o nlyt o a si ng le pr oducer

. ” I

d. “The verynatur e of th[o] s e mut ual l yexcl us i ve c o m m itm e n ts in th e re sp e c tiv e c o n tra c ts m e a n t th a t U n iv e rsa l a n d H /R c o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n ‘in c o m p e tit io n ’ w ith re sp e c t to th e ir se p a ra te pur chas es fr om T exas Foundr i es p ur s uantt o t he governm ent contr act s . ” Id

. “T her efor e, w hi l e the pr i ce di s cr epanc ybetw een [ T e x a s F o u n d rie s’s sa les to H /R u n d e r th e 1 9 7 1 C o n tra c t an d to U ni ver s al undert he 1970 C ont r actE xt ens ion] coul d have a ffe ct ed U n iv e rsa l’s p ro f

it s u n d e r th e [ 1 9 7 0 C o n tra c t E x ten sio n ], th is d isc rim in a tio n in n o w a yd im in ish e d U n iv e rsa l’s c o m p e titiv e a b ili ty i n t hatpl ug m arket

. ” I

d. T h u s, ev en tho u g h “U n iversa l and H /R w ere c o m p e titiv e b id d e rs o n th e 1 9 7 1 [ C ]o n tr a c t[ , t] h e yc o u ld n o t b e . . . c o m p e tit iv e p u rc h a se rs a s re q u ire d b yth e A c t e ith e r u n d e r th e ir r es pect i ve s epar at e contr act s orunderboth. ” I d. 15
Si m i l ar r eas oni ng w as al s o i nvoked i n V olvo Tr ucks

. 54 6 U. S. at178. The r e , the Sup rem e C ou rtdis cou nted the p urchase-t o-purchase and off er - t o- pur chas e evi dence offe r ed byR eede ri n par tbeca us e that26 evi dence di d nots how t hatR eede rcompet ed “w i t h benef i ci ar i es of the al l eged di s cr i m i nat i on f o rth e s a me c u s t o mer . ” I d. (e m p h a sis in o r i g i n a l )

. “ Th a tVo l v o d e a l e r s ma yb i d for s a l e s i n th e s a me geogr aphi c ar ea” w as of no i m por tt o the Supr eme Court beca us e that f a c twa s n o t r e l e v a n t t o wh e t h e r t wo d e a l e r s “ c o mp e t [ e d ] f o rt h e s a me cus t om er - t ai l or ed s al es . ” I d. at179. “O nce a r et ai l cu stom er ha s chos en t h e p a r t i c u l a r d e a l e r s f r o m wh i c h i t wi l l s o l i c i t b i d s , ‘ t he r el evant m arke tbecomes l i m i t ed t o the nee ds and demands of a par t i cul arend us er , w i t h onl ya handf u l o f deal er s compet i ng forthe ul t i m at e s al e. ’ ” I

d. ( quot i ng R eede r - Si m co GM C, I nc. , 374 F. 3d at719 (H an sen , J. , d issen ti n g )).
A c c o rd in g ly , w e r e

jec t th e a rg u m e n t th a t Tol edo M ack w as a s i m pl e appl i cat i on of the tw o pur chas err equi r ement. Im pl i ci ti n t he Tol edo M

ack C our t ’ s hol di ng w as the conc l us i on t ha tTo l e do coul d not sh o w itw as a co m p eti n g p u rch ase r of o ther M ac k tru ck d e a le rs . In ot her w o rds , t he tw o pur chas err equi r ementcoul d notbe s at i s fi ed b ec au se th e rel ev an t m ark et o f co m p eti ti o n w as l im it ed to on e d ea ler, one cus t om er , and one truck manufactur eratt he t i m e of the s al e of the tru c k , i.e ., th e re w e re n o c o m p e tin g p u rc h a s e rs . Tol edo M ack , 530 F. 3d at228.
C.
A ppl y i ng t he t eac hi ngs of V olvo Truc ks and Tol edo M ack t o the i ns t antcas e, i ti s cl eart hatFees er s neverexper i ence d a competi ti ve in ju ryf ro m S o d e x o ’s p u rc h a se s a n d sa les o f M ic h a e ls’s p ro d u c ts b e c a u s e F e e s e rs a n d S o d e x o w e re n o t c o m p e tin g p u rc h a s e rs . See V olvo Tr ucks , 546 U

. S. at 179. T he compet i t i on betw een Fee s er s and Sodexo fori ns t i tut i ons ’ bus i nes s occurr ed pr i ort o M i chae l s ’ s s al es of27 food pr oduct s t o Fees er s and Sodexo, “w hen a c us t om ercons i der [ed] s w i t c h in g f

ro m s e lf -o p to f o o d s e rv ic e m a n a g e m e n t, o r v ic e v e rs a .” Fees ers , I

nc. , 632 F. Supp. 2d at 430. A t t hat t i m e, Sodexo w oul d not y et have s ecur ed any pr oduct s fr om M i chae l s for r es al e t o the pr os pect i ve cus t om erbeca us e the cus t om erw oul d onl ybe de ci di ng w hetheri tw i s hed t o begi n t he R FP proc es s or , i f i thad al r eadychos en to e n g a g e in th e R F P p ro c e ss , w h e th e r to in v ite S o d e x o to p a rticip a te in th a t p ro c e ss . O n c e th e c u sto m e r h a s c h o se n w h e th e r to se lf -o p e ra te orcontr actw i t h a food s ervi ce managementcompany , “the r el evant m arketbecomes l i m i t ed t o the needs and demands of a pa r t i cul arend us er , w i t h onl ya handf

ul of [di s t r i but or s orfood s ervi ce management compani es ] compet i ng forthe ul t i m at e s al e. ” V olvo Tr ucks , 54 6 U. S. a t 1 7 9 ; Tol edo M

ack , 5 3 0 F

. 3 d a t 2 2 8

. T h u s, F ee sers a n d S o d ex o ’s compet i t i on att hatear l ys t age w as i r r el ev an t to the s al es m ade by M i chaels aft er that com peti t i on w as com plet e. If an i nst i tuti on cho se t o s el f- oper at e, Sodexo w oul d be el i m i nat ed fr om t he compet i t i on, and i f a n i n s t i tu t i o n c h o s e t o c o n t r a c twi t h a f o o d s e r v i c e ma n a g e me nt company , Fees er s w oul d be el i m i nat ed fr om t he compet i t i on. A ft er m aki ng thati ni t i al deci s i on, the cus t om erthen has t o choos e w hi ch d istrib u to r o r f

o o d se rv ic e m a n a g e m e n t co m p a n yit w ill h ire . O n ly a f ter th a t p ro c e ss is c o m p lete w o u ld th e c u sto m e r th e n a c tu a lly pur chas e food f

r om M i chae l s t hr ough t he w i nni ng di s t r i but ororfood s e r v i c e m a n a g e m e n tc o m p a n y. A tal l eve n ts, assu m ing F ee sers a n d S o d ex o en g aged i n head- t oh e a d c o mp e t i t i o n , a n d t h e d i s c o u n t s g r a n t e d b yM i c h a e l s t o t h e t wo c o m p a n ies d e ter m in e d f ro m w h ich c o m p a n y an in stitu tio n w o u ld pur chas e M i chae l s ’ s pr oduct s , the compet i ng pur chas err eq u i r ement w o u ld still n o t b e sa tisf

ied b e c a u se M ich a e ls d o e s n o t m a k e a sa le u n til t he i ns t i tut i on choos es a part i cul ardi s t r i but or o r f o o d s ervi ceT h e di s counts chemes i n V olvo Truc ks and Tol edo 16 Mack w er e l arge lyi ndi s t i ngui s habl e fr om the devi at ed pr i ci ng s y s te m u s e d in th e f

o o d m a n u f

a c tu re r i n d u s tr y . See Tol edo Mack , 530 F. 3d at 209- 10 ( expl ai ni ng t hat r eques t s fo r sal es a ss ista n c e to M a c k o c c u rre d p rio r to su b m iss io n o f b id to c u s to m e r ) ; V

olvo Tr ucks , 546 U

. S. at170- 71 ( s ame)

. Food s ervi ce managementcompani es , s elf-o p s , and G PO s , l i ke the t ruck dea l er s i n Tol edo M ack and Volv o Tr uc ks d e a lin g w ith m anufa ctur er s , avai l ed themsel ves of devi at ed pr i ci ng arr ange m en ts w ith fo o d m an u fa cture rs. In g en era l, these e nt i t i es kn ow t he d i sc o u n t theyw i l l recei ve b efore t heypu rchase pr o d u c t s f

r o m ma n u f

a c tu r e r s . Fo o d s e r v i c e ma n a g ement c o m pan i es can adj ust t heir bid t o a prospecti ve cust o m e r to i nco rporat e t hese de viat ed p ri ci ng arr ang em ents
. 28 m a n a g e m e n t c o m p a n y a n d th e n b e g in s p u rc h a sin g M ich a e ls’s p ro d u c ts thro u g h that co m p an y . See Tol edo M ack , 530 F. 3d at228. T he r el evantm arket at t he t i m e of t he sal e of M i chae l s ’ s pr oduct s w i l l have alread yb ee n n arro w ed to o n e— the co m p an y that w o n the in sti tuti o n ’s b u s in e s s . See i d.
W hi l e the t i m i ng of the compet i t i on and the n at ur e of the m arketcom pel us t o concl ude thatFees er s and Sodexo w er e not compet i ng pur chas er s , i ti s al s o r el evantt hat t he evi dence pr oduced by F e e se rs w a s th e sa m e typ e o f a v e ra g e d isc o u n t ev id e n c e p ro d u c e d in To ledo Mack

. C om

par e Tol edo M

ack , 530 F. 3d at215 ( pl ai nt i ff 16 pr oduci ng evi dence compar i ng “the ave r age a m ountof s al es as s i s t ance ” r ece i ved byt he pl ai nt i ff a s compar ed t o ot herM ack truck d e a le rs ), w i th Fees ers , I nc. , 632 F. Supp. 2d at434 ( pl ai nt i ff pr oduci ng evi dence s how i ng t hat Sodexo cons i s t ent l yr ece i ved “s tunni ng” pr i ce d isco u n ts th at am o u n ted to a 5 9 % d iffe ren ce in p ri ce s b etw ee n F ee sers29 a n d So d e x o o v e rf

o u ry e a r s )

. Th e T

o ledo Mack C our tr ej ect ed s uch evidence as i nsuff

i ci ent t o prove i njury t o co m peti t i on i n p artbecau se “mer el yoffe r i ng l ow erpr i ces t o a custom er does notgi ve r i s e t o a pr i ce di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m . ” Tol edo M ack , 530 F. 3d at227- 28 ( ci t i ng Cr o s s r o a d

s Cog e n e r a t i o n Cor

p . v . Or a n g e & Ro c k l a n d Ut i l s . , I nc. , 159 F. 3d 129, 142 ( 3d C i r . 1998) )

. A pl ai nt i ff m us t al s o s how thatthe e f f e c t o f th e lo w e r p ri c e s w a s to in ju re c o m p e titio n . Tol edo M ack , 530 F. 3d at228 ( ci t i ng C r os s r oads C ogener at i on C or p. , 1 5 9 F

. 3 d at 14 2 ); V olvo Tr ucks , 546 U

. S. at181. Y etthats how i ng i s i m pos s i bl e w her e, as her e, t he ca s e i nvol ves s al es vi a a bi ddi ng p roc es s and the c o m p e t i t io n o c c u rs b e f o re th e b id d in g p ro c e s s e v e n b e g in s . See Tol edo M

ack , 546 U

. S. at228.
I n addi t i on, t he Supr eme Court ’ s di r ect i ve t o narr ow l ycons t rue t h e RP A t o a d d r e s s t h e b a s i c p u rp o s e s o f t h e s t a tut e fu r t h e ri n f

o r ms ourconcl us i on t hatFees er s w as nota com pet i ng pur chas er of Sodexo. V olvo Tr ucks , 5 4 6 U .S . at 1 8 0 -8 1 ; s ee Tol edo M ack , 530 F. 3d at227. T h e p ric e d isc rim in a tio n id e n tifie d b yF e e se rs b e a rs “ little re se m b lan c e to [ th e ] la rg e in d e p e n d e n t d e p a rtm e n t sto re s a n d c h a in o p e ra tio n s ” th e s ta tu te w a s o ri g in a lly in te n d e d to ta rg e t. Tol edo M ack , 530 F. 3d at 2 2 7 ( quot i ng V olvo Tr ucks , 546 U

. S. at181)

. H er e, l i ke i n V olvo Tr ucks , t her e i s a m yr i ad of di ffe r ence s betw een r et ai l s t or es and foo d servi ce m anag em ent com pan i es and f oo d d i stri bu t ors. Fi r s t , i n m anyr es pect s , Sodexo and Fees er s do notcompet e. S o dexo pr epar es and s el l s m eal s and handl es al l di ni ng s ervi ce funct i ons fori t s cus t om er s . Fees er s onl ydi s t r i but es food. C om pet i ng re tail sto re s, in c o n tra st, g e n e ra llyc o m p e te to s e ll f u n g ib le g o o d s to th e sa m e g ro u p o f

c u sto m e rs. S e c o n d , S o d e x o o p e ra te s in a b id m arket w i t h ot herfood s ervi ce managementcompani es , and compet es30 w i t h Fees er s onl y i n a pr el i m i narys t age w her e a pr os pect i ve cus t om er i s deci di ng w hether t o s el f- oper at e or hi r e a food s ervi ce management co m p an y . R etail stores c o m p ete o v er p rosp ec ti v e c u stom ers e v ery ti m e a cu stom er d ec ides to p u rch ase a p rod u ct, an d tho se p u rch ase s are n o t m a d e in a b id m a rk e t. T h ird , S o d e x o c o m p e tes f o r c u sto m e rs w ith Fees er s pr i ort o pur chas i ng food fr om M i chaels. R et ai l s t or es g e n e ra ll y p u rc h a se p ro d u c ts f ro m m a n u f

a c tu re rs a n d th e n c o m p e te w ith o th e r r e ta ile rs b a s e d o n p ri c in g . I n s um , beca us e anycompet i t i on betw een Fee s er s and Sodexo o c c u rre d a t th e tim e a n in stitu tio n w a s d e c id in g w h e th e r to se lf -o p e ra te orhi r e a f

ood s ervi ce management company , and any r es ul t i ng s al e of M i chae l s ’ s pr oduct s w oul d have to o cc uraft ert hatcompet i t i on, Fees er s cannots how t hati tw as a compet ing p u rcha s erof Sodexo. T he evi dence pr oduced by Fees er s onl y fur t her confi r m s t he fut i l i t yof i t s R PA cl ai m s , beca us e s uch evi dence

— evi dence s how i ng cons i s t ent f a v o r i n g o f

a n o t h e rp u r c h a s e ro v e rt h e p l a i n t i f f o v e rt i m e b y a m anufa ctur eri n a bi d m arket

— w as r ej ect ed i n Tol edo M ack

. Such e v id e n c e c a n n o t su p p o rt a n in f e re n c e o f

c o m p e tit iv e in

ju ryin a b id m a rk e t. F in a lly , the S u p r e m e C o u rt’s in stru c tio n s to n a rro w ly con strue the R P A al so com pel us t o rej ectF eeser s’ s R P A cl ai m s. III

. T he D i s t r i ctC our t , aft er t hought ful cons i der at i on of the V olvo T rucks and Tol edo M

ack deci s i ons , d et erm i ned thatthos e dec i s i ons w ere n o t co n tr o ll ing fo r th ree rea so n s: ( 1 ) V olvo Tr ucks in v o lv e d o n ly fo r ma l c o mpe t i t i o n whe r e a s t h e i n s t a n t c a s e i n v o l v e s f o r ma l and i nform al c o m pet i t i on; ( 2) appl i cat i on of Tol edo M ack t o t he i ns t ant cas e w oul d m i s cons t rue thatdeci s i on’ s hol di ng by im p o s i ng a new31 r equi r ementundert he R PA , di vor ced f r om t he s t atut oryt ext , t hatt he m anufa ctur er ’ s s al e of the com m o d it yt o t w o di ffe r ents el l er s occur pr i ort o t he compet i t i on for t he r es al e of t hos e goods ; and ( 3) a l ogi cal r eadi ng of Tol edo M

ack l i mi t s t h a t d e c i s i o n ’ s a p p l i c a b i l i t yt o c u s t o mm anufa ctur ed goods

. W e r ej ecteac h of thes e r eas ons i n turn. T he D i s t r i ctC our tr eas oned thatbeca us e “[ f]ood se r vi ce m a n a g e m e n t co m p a n ies , d istrib u to rs, a n d G P O s a ll c o m p e te f o rm a lly and i nform al l yfor t he s al e of food t o i ns t i tut i ons , ” the i ns t antcas e w as d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f

r o m V olvo Tr ucks , w h i c h i tb e l i e v e d i n v o l v e d o n l y a f o r m a l b id d in g p ro c e s s . Fees ers , I nc. , 632 F. Supp. 2d at431. C ont r aryt o t he D i s t r i ctC ou rt ’ s bel i ef, t he mar keti n V olvo Tr ucks in v o lv e d b o th f

o rm a l a n d in f

o rm a l c o m p e titio n . In th a t c a s e , a cus t om er ’ s deci s i on t o r eques ta bi d fr om a part i cul ardeal erw as bas ed on i nform al compet i t i ve fa ct or s s uch as “an ex istin gre la tio n sh ip , . . . r eputat i on , and cold cal l i ng orotherm arket i ng s tr at egi es i ni t i at ed by i nd i vi du al deal ers .” V

olvo Tr ucks , 546 U

. S. at170 ( i nt ernal quot at i on o m itt e d ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). S o d e x o ’s a c tio n s w e re in d istin g u ish a b le fr om t he act i ons of t ruck dea l er s i n V olvo Tr ucks

. Sodexo compet ed fori ns t i tut i ons ’ bus i nes s t hr ough the form al R FP proc es s , and thr ough “i nform al cont act s w i t h t ar get ed i ns t i tut i ons . ” Fees ers , I nc. , 63 2 F. Supp. 2d at428.
Th e Di s t r i c tCou r t ’ s s e c o n d r e a s o n , t h a tc o n s t ru i ng T ol edo Mack t o appl yt o t he i ns t antcas e w oul d r equi r e i m pos i ng a new r equi r ementundert he R PA that the s al e of the comm odi t ybythe m anufa ctur ert o t w o di ffe r ent s el l er s occurpr i ort o the compet i t i on for r es al e of tho s e goods , i s a mi s under s t andi ng of the compet i ngT h a t b e in g sa id , th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e sire to a v o id 17 m isa p p ly in g o u r p re c e d e n t in th is c o m p lica ted a r e a o f law is comm endabl e. I ndeed, t hi s i s not t he fi r s t t i m e t he R PA has f l u mm o x e d t h e f

e d e r a l c o u r t s , n o r , b a r r i n g a r e p e a l o f th e l a w, w ill it b e th e la s t. C om par e, e. g. , V

an DykR es ear ch C or

p. v. X er ox C or p. , 6 3 1 F .2 d 2 5 1 , 2 5 5 n .2 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 0 ) (a ss e rtin g in d icta th a t f

a ilu re to p ro v e th e “ f

a c t o f in ju ry ” c a n c o n c lu siv e ly bari nj unct i v e re l i ef) ( ci t i ng Mer i tMot ors , I nc. v. C hr

ys l er C or p. , 5 6 9 F .2 d 6 6 6 , 6 6 8 n .2 , 6 7 0 n .1 4 (D .C . C ir . 1 9 7 7 )) , w ith Fees ers , I

nc. , 498 F. 3d at 213 ( expl ai ni ng t hat pl ai nt i ff need not pr ov e actual harm t o compet i t i on t o r ece i ve i nj unct i ve r el i ef) ( ci t i ng Fall

s C i t y Indus. , 460 U

. S. at435)

. T he R PA pl ace s t he f e d e ra l co u rts in a n in e sc a p a b le C a tch -2 2 . W e a re a sk e d to a p p lyth e R P A , a s tatu te th a t “is f u n d a m e n tallyin c o n sis ten t w ith t he ant i t rus tl aw s , ” A nt i t rus tM oderni zat i on C om m i s s i on, R e p o rt a n d R e c o m m e n d a tio n s 3 1 2 (2 0 0 7 ), in a f a sh io n th a t is

“ c o n s is te n t[ ] w ith th e b ro a d e r p o lic ie s o f th e a n titr u s t la w s .” V olvo Tr ucks , 546 U

. S. at 181 ( quot i ng B r ooke G r oup , 50 9 U. S. at220)

. T hi s conundrum i s bound t o cr eat e conf us i on forj udges cal l ed u po n to applyt he R P A i n a h ostof set t i ng s. 32 pur chas er r equi r ement
. T he rul e the D i s t r i ctC our tdes cr i bes i s not 17 n e w

— it i s s im p lyth e p ro d u c t o f th e c o m p e tin g p u rc h a se r re q u ire m e n t, whi c h c o n s i d e r s t h e r e l e v a n t ma r k e t , a b i d ma r k e t , a n d t h e t i mi ng of t he compet i t i on, befor e the s al e t o t he manufactur er . T he M.C . M fg

. C our texpl ai ned thatt her e i s a “c om pet i t i ve pur cha ser” r equi r ement i nh erenti n the “tw o p urchaser” and “co m peti t i ve inj ury ” el em ents
. M

. C. M f g. , 5 1 7 F .2 d a t 1 0 6 7 ; s ee Volvo Tr ucks , 546 U

. S. at179; Tol edo M

ack , 530 F. 3d at228. I n Fees er s ’ s pr i orappea l , w e embr ace d t hatappr oach t o the compet i ng pur chas er r equi r ement by s t at i ng that Sodexo and Fees er s compet e o n ly if “t heyar e ea ch di r ect l yaft erthe s ame dol l ar . ” Fees ers , I nc. , 498 F. 3d at214 ( quot i ng M

. C

. M f g. , 517N ot abl y , w e do nothol d t hatthe s al es of pr oduct s by 18 th e m a n u f

a c tu re r t o tw o p u rc h a se rs m u st alw a y s o c c u r pr io r to th e c o m p e tit io n b e tw e e n th e tw o p u rc h a se rs. O u r h o ld in g is lim ited to b id m a rk e ts th a t c lo se ly re se m b le th e m a rk e ts in th is c a s e , V olvo Tr ucks , and Tol edo M ack

. 33 F. 2d at1068 n. 20)

. W e now hol d t hat , s i m pl yput , Fees er s and Sodexo ca n n o t com p ete f

o r the sam e d o ll ar b ec au se th eir resales o f M icha els’s p ro d u c ts to in stitu tio n s, b yth e ir “ v e ryn a tu re [ , w e re ] m u tu a lly excl us i ve comm i t m ent s . ” M

. C

. M f g. , 5 1 7 F. 2 d at1067

. The RPA 18 d o e s n o t o rd in a rilyp ro tec t co m p e tit io n w h e re “ a p r o d u c t su b jec t to s p e c ia l o rd e r is s o ld th ro u g h a c u s to m e r- s p e c if ic b id d in g p r o c e s s .” V olvo Tr ucks , 5 4 6 U .S . a t 1 7 0 (c o n tra stin g su c h c o m p e tit io n w ith “compet i t i on betw een di ffe r entpur chas er s forr es al e of [a] pur chas ed pr oduct ”). I n ot herw or ds , the R PA w as notm eantt o coverthe type of compet i t i on pr es enti n t he i ns t antcas e. T hi r d, t he D i s t r i ctC our tr ea soned thata l ogi cal r eadi ng of Tol edo Mack

l i mi t e d th a td e c i s i o n ’ s a p p l i c a b i l i t y t o c u s t o mm anufa ctur ed goods

. T hi s concl us i on i s r efut ed bythe Tol edo M ack C our t ’ s r el i ance on t he M

. C. M f g. d e c is io n , Tol edo M

ack , 530 F. 3d at 228 ( ci t i ng M

. C

. M

f g. , 5 1 7 F .2 d a t 1 0 6 5 (m a n u f a c tu rin g g e n e ric pr oduct ) ) , and t hi s C our t ’ s expl i ci t gui dance t o appl ythe pr i nci pl es of M

. C

. M f g. to th is a c tio n . Feesers , 498 F. 3d at214 ( ci t i ng M

. C

. M f g. , 517 F. 3d at1068 n. 20)

. M or eover , t her e i s no r eas on t o l i m i tt he r eac h of the Tol edo M

ack deci s i on t o cus t om i zed goods be caus e the under l y i ng pr i nci pl es , per t ai ni ng t o the t i m i ng of the compet i t i on and th e n a tu re o f th e m a rk e t, re m a in th e sa m e w h e th e r a p p lied to g e n e ric g o o d s o r c u sto m ize d g o o d s. T h is C o u rt’s d ire c tiv e to “ n a rro w ly i nt erpr ett he oft

- ques t i oned R PA ” al s o s uppor t s r ej ect i on of the D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s v ie w . Tol edo M ack , 530 F. 3d at228 n. 17. A narr owF or exam ple, i n a propo sal t o the B et h S ho l om H ou se 19 o f E a ste rn V irg in ia, S o d e x o u rg e d th e in stitu tio n to u til ize its foo d p rocurem ent pr og ram t o “take full advan t age o f [S od exo ’s ] kos hervendor s . ” Fee sers , I nc. , 632 F. Supp. 2d at429. T he p ro p o sa l sta tes th a t u s in g S o d e x o ’s k o sh e r v e n d o rs w o u ld “st rea m l i ne the or der i ng pr oces s [and] s ubs t ant i al l yr educe p ri c in g ” f

o r t h e in s t i t u tio n . I

d. K os herfood pur chas i ng i s an i ns t i tut i on- s peci fi c r equi r emen tand thus i s a cus t om i zed offeri ng. T he s ame w oul d be true forhos pi t al s , w hi ch ut i l i ze l engthy R F P p roces s es t o confi r m t hatal l t he s peci al needs of t h e h o s p i t a l a r e m e tb y t h e f o o d s e r v i c e m a n a g e m e n tc o m p a n y. In f a c t, th e f o o d s o rd e re d f

o r a n yp a rticu lar in stitu tio n w o u ld depend on the “s i ze a nd t ype of i ns t i tut i on” and mayi ncl ude “bi ds on a w i de r ange of s ervi ces . ” I

d. at42 8. S od exo al so ent er s i nt o pr ofi tand l os s contr act s w her e “[i t ] offe r s a fi nanci al guar ant ee thatt he di ni ng s ervi ces w i l l notl os e money , and the i ns t i tut i on s har es i n a ce r t ai n per cent age of the prof i t s . ” I d. at 4 4 2

. 34 i nt erpr et at i on, one thatl i m i t s t he appl i cabi l i tyof the A ct , cal l s for t aki ng an expans i ve vi ew of Tol edo M ack ’ s hol di ng and notl i m i t i ng it to c u s to m iz e d g o o d s . See id

. Fi nal l y , even i f the Tol edo M ack d ec isi o n w as li m it ed to cu stom ized g o o d s, S o d ex o o ff ers M icha els’s f o o d p ro d u c ts a s p a rt o f

a c u s to m iz e d s e rv ic e to c u s to m e rs . Feesers , I nc. , 632 F. Supp. 2 d at 4 2 8 ( fi ndi ng t hatSodexo s om et i m es “det erm i nes w hether ther e ar e any par t i cul arpr obl ems t o be s ol ved [a t an inst i tuti on ]”)

. P res um ably , problem s varyacross i nst i tuti on s so 19 th e p ro p o se d so lu tio n s f o r a n yg iv e n in stitu tio n w o u ld b e tailo re d to t ha ti ns t i tut i on ’ s ne e ds

. I n f a c t , t he mer e e xi s t e nc e of a formal RFP pr oces s s how s t hati ns t i tut i ons r equi r e cus tom i zed c ont r act s t o s erve th e irs p e c if

ic n e e d s .35 I V.
H avi ng det erm i ned thatFees er s and S o d exo w er e not c o m p e tit o rs, th re e o u tsta n d in g iss u e s re m a in . F irst, w h e th e r th is C o u rt’s h o ld in g is b a rre d b yth e law o f th e c a se . S e c o n d , h o w th is C our t ’ s hol di ng w i l l aff ect t he exi s t i ng perm anenti nj unct i on or der ed b ythe D istri c t C o u rt
. T h ir d , the e ff ec t of co n clud ing that F ee sers c a n n o t p ro v e a § 2 (a ) c laim a g a in s t M ic h a e ls o n th e § 2 (f ) c laim agai ns tSodexo. W e di s cus s eac h of the i s s ues i n turn. A.
T h e “law o f th e cas e . . . d o ctri n e po sit s that w h e n a c o u rt deci des upon a rul e of l aw , t hat deci s i on s houl d cont i nue t o govern the s ame i s s ues i n s ubs equents t ages i n the s ame cas e. ” A r iz ona v. C a lif o rn ia , 460 U

. S. 605, 618 ( 1983)

. T he “doc t r i ne does notr es t r i ct a court ’ s pow erbutr athergoverns i t s exer ci s e of di s cr et i on. ” P ub. I nt er es t R es ear ch G r oup of N

. J. , I nc. v. M agnes i um E l ektr on , 123 F. 3d 1 1 1 , 1 1 6 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 7 ) (cita tio n s o m itt e d ). “ A c o u rt h a s th e p o w e r to r evi s i tpr i ordeci s i ons o f it s ow n orof a c oor di nat e courti n any ci r cumst ance , al t hough as a rul e court s s houl d be l oathe t o do s o i n t he abs ence of extra or di naryci r cumst ance s s uch as w her e the i ni t i al d e c is io n w a s c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s a n d w o u ld m a k e a m a n if e s t in ju s tic e .” C hr is t i ans on v. C ol t I

ndus

. O per at i ng C or

p. , 486 U

. S. 800, 816 ( 1988) ( ci t i ng A r iz ona , 4 6 0 U

. S

. at 61 8 n . 8 ).
Fees er s ar gues thatthi s C our thel d, i n i t s pr i oropi ni on, thatthe e v id e n c e o f

p ric e d isc rim in a tio n in th e re c o rd w a s su f f icie n t to a p p ly a n in f e re n c e o f

c o m p e tit iv e in

ju ry . If th is a rg u m e n t w e re tru e , it w oul d be di ffi cul tforus now t o concl ude t h at Fees er s cannots how36 th a t itw a s a c o m p e tin g p u rc h a se r, as b e in g a c o m p e tin g p u rc h a se r is a p re re q u isite to th e a p p lica tio n o f th e in f e re n c e . F e e se rs’ s a rg u m e n t, ho w ever, fai l s for s everal reas on s. Fi r s t , t hi s C ou rt ’s p ri oropi ni on di d nothol d as Fees er s now cl ai m s . T hi s C our tr ever s ed the D i s tr ict C our t ’ s s um m aryj udgm ent forthe def

enda n ts e x pl ai ni ng t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tus ed the w r ong s t andar d i n concl udi ng t hatFees er s and S o d ex o w er e noti n actual c o m p e titio n . Fees ers , I nc. , 498 F. 3d at208. I n doi ng s o, w e not ed th a t “ if su b stan ti al p ri ce d iscri m ination b etw ee n co m p eti n g p u rch ase rs o v e r t im e is e s ta b lis h e d , then the in fe ren ce o f c o m p eti ti v e inju ry ar i s es . ” I

d. a t2 1 6 ( e mp h a s i s a d d e d )

. At t hatear l ys t age of the l i t i gat i on, t hi s C our tbel i eved o n lythat“Fees er s ha[d] pr offe r ed su f f icie n t ev id e n c e o f

c o m p e tit io n b e tw e e n itse lf a n d S o d e x [ o ]

. . . to al l ow a r eas onabl e fac t fi nder t o concl ude t hat [they ] [w e] r e i n actual com pet i t i on. ” I

d. ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n o mi t t e d )

. Th i s Cou r t t hen r emanded t he ca s e forfur t her pr ocee di ngs cons i s t ent w i t h i t s opi ni on. I d. at 2 1 6

. N o w h ere i n t he pr i oropi ni on di d t hi s C our thol d t hat F e e s e r s a n d S o d e x o w e r e c o m p e t i n g p u r c h a s e r s o r , m o r e g e n e r a l l y, t hat Feesers had est abli shed an i nference o f com peti t i ve inj ury . T hu s, t he l aw of the ca s e does not pr event us fr om hol di ng t hatFees er s and S o d e x o we r e n o tc o mp e t i n g p u r c h a s e r s u n d e rth e RP A.
S ec ond, ourpr es entr evi ew of thi s cas e i s conduct ed w i t h the benef i tof a f ul l r ecor d es t abl i s hed attr i al

. T hatr ecor d w as not avai l abl e t o t hi s C our tw hen w e dec i d ed Fees er s ’ s appea l fr om su m m a ryju d g m e n t. W e n o w k n o w th a t F e e se rs c a n n o t sh o w th a t it and S od exo w ere com peti ng pu rchaser s based on the t i m i ng o f th e ir compet i t i on and the natur e of the mar ket

— i s s ues t hatw er e neve r d iscu ssed in the p ri o r o p inion , p resu m ab ly , b ec au se a co m p let e re co rd37 h a d n o t b e e n e sta b li s h e d . F in a lly , ev e n if th is C o u rt h a d p re v io u sly h e ld o th e rw ise , o u r h o ld in g in th is c a se w o u ld b e a p e rm iss ib le re e v a lu a tio n o f

p re c e d e n t in lig h t o f in te rv e n in g a u th o ri ty, Tol edo Mack

. See I

ns t i t ut i onalI

nves t ors G r oup v. A vaya , 564 F. 3d 242, 276 n. 50 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( ci t i ng R ei ch v. D

. M

. Sabi a C o. , 90 F. 3d 854, 858 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 6 )).
B.
T he p erm anen ti njunct i on i ssued byt he D i stri c t C o u rtst at es: “[M i chae l s ] i s enj oi ned fr om r efus i ng t o s el l i t s pr oduct s t o Fees er s on the s am e term s a s th e y a re so ld to S o d e[ x ]o, so lo n g as F ee sers ot herw i s e meet s i t s s t andar ds as a cus t om er . ” Thi s i nj unct i on w as i s s ued under Sect i on 16 of t he C l ayt on A ct ( 1) as a re m ed yfor con t em pt and (2) t o prevent futur e com peti t i ve i nju ry to F eeser s. B eca us e w e ar e r ever s i ng t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entas a mat t erof l a w, n e i t h e ro f

i t s r e a s o n s f

o rt h e i n j u n c t i o n s u r v i v e . An i nj unct i on i s s ued bas ed on ci vi l cont em p t ca n nots t and w her e the under l y i ng o rd e r o n w h ic h it is b a s e d is in v a lid

. See U ni ver s alA thl et i c Sal es C o. v . Sa lke ld , 5 1 1 F

. 2 d 904, 909- 10 ( 3d C i r . 1975)

. O urhol di ng t oday re n d e rs th e n e e d to p ro tec t F e e se rs f ro m f u rth e r in ju ryn o n -e x iste n t, becau se Feesers, as a m at t er of law , i s not a com peti ng pu rchaservis

à- vi s Sodexo.
C.
F e e s e r s ’ s c l a i m a g a i n s tS o d e x o a r i s e s u n d e r§ 2 ( f ) o f th e RP A. T h a t p ro v isio n sta tes : “I t sh a ll b e u n law f u l f o r an y p e rso n e n g a g e d in comm er ce, i n t he cour s e of s uch comm erc e, know i ngl yt o i nduce or re c e iv e a d is c ri m in a tio n in p ri c e w h ic h is p ro h ib ite d b y th is s e c tio n .”38 15 U

. S. C

. § 13( f)

. B eca us e a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of pr i ce di s cr i m i nat i on un der§ 2 ( a ) of

t he RPA c a nn otbe e s t a bl i s he d a ga i ns tM i c ha el s, S o d e x o c a n n o t b e h e ld lia b le f o r i n d u c e m e n t. G r eat A t l

. & P ac. Tea C o. , 44 0 U

. S

. at76 (“[A ] bu y er can no t be l i able i f a pri m a facie cas e co u ld n o t be e stab li sh ed ag ains t a sell er.”). V. Fees er s cannot sh o w t hati tand Sodexo w er e compet i ng pur chas er s , and ther efor e, cannots how t hati ts uffe r ed compet i t i ve i njuryun der the R ob i nson -Pat m an A ct
. A ccordi ng l y , w e w i l l rever se t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entforFees er s and i ns t ructt he D i s t r i ct C our tt o ent erj udgm entas a m at t er of l aw for M i chae l s and Sodexo.