PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

________________

No. 18-3567

________________

IN RE: REMICADE (DIRECT PURCHASER) ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION

JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC.,

 Appellants

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(E.D. Pa. No. 2-18-cv-00303)

District Judge: Honorable J. Curtis Joyner

____________________________________

Argued on July 9, 2019

___________

Before: SHWARTZ, KRAUSE, and FUENTES, Circuit 

Judges

(Opinion filed: September 13, 2019)
2

Ashley E. Bass

Covington & Burling

850 10th Street, N.W.

One City Center

Washington, DC 20001

William F. Cavanaugh, Jr. [Argued]

Adeel A. Mangi

Sara A. Arrow

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler

1133 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10036

Leslie E. John

Burt M. Rublin

Ballard Spahr 

1735 Market Street

51st Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Counsel for Appellants 

David F. Sorensen [Argued]

Andrew C. Curley

Zachary D. Caplan

Berger Montague

1818 Market Street

Suite 3600

Philadelphia, PA 19103
3

Daniel J. Walker

Berger Montague

2001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Suite 300

Washington, DC 20006

Archana Tamoshunas, Esq.

Taus Cebulash & Landau

80 Maiden Lane

Suite 1204

New York, NY 10038

Counsel for Appellee 

______________________

OPINION OF THE COURT

______________________

KRAUSE, Circuit Judge.

Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary Janssen Biotech, 

Inc. appeal the District Court’s denial of their motion to compel 

arbitration of federal antitrust claims asserted by Rochester 

Drug Cooperative (RDC) on the ground that those claims fall 

within the scope of an agreement to arbitrate all claims “arising 

out of or relating to” a distribution contract between them. We 

conclude that RDC’s antitrust claims, which allege that 

Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Biotech’s anticompetitive 

conduct caused RDC to pay artificially inflated prices for 

products purchased under the distribution contract, do “arise 

out of or relate to” the distribution contract. Accordingly, we 
4

will reverse and remand for the District Court to refer the

matter to arbitration. 

I. Background

RDC is a direct purchaser and wholesaler of Remicade, 

the brand name of infliximab, which is a “biologic infusion 

drug”1 manufactured by Johnson & Johnson and Janssen 

Biotech (J&J) and used to treat inflammatory conditions such 

as rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn’s disease. For many years, 

Remicade was the only infliximab drug on the market, but that 

position was threatened when the Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) began approving “biosimilars” of 

Remicade—that is, drugs produced by other companies that 

have been deemed by the FDA to have no clinically meaningful 

differences from Remicade. The thrust of RDC’s allegations 

is that J&J sought to maintain Remicade’s monopoly by 

engaging in an anticompetitive scheme referred to as a 

“Biosimilar Readiness Plan” (Plan), which consisted of, inter 

alia, (1) “[i]mposing biosimilar-exclusion contracts on 

insurers that either [i] require insurers to deny coverage for 

biosimilars altogether or [ii] impose unreasonable

preconditions . . . governing coverage”; (2) “[m]ulti-product 

bundling of J&J’s Remicade with other J&J drugs, biologics, 

and medical devices”; and (3) “[e]xclusionary agreements and 

bundling arrangements with healthcare providers similar to 

those entered into with insurers.” JA 100.

 

1 RDC Br. 3. A biologic drug is one “derived from 

natural, biological sources.” Id. at 3 n.9 (citation omitted). 
5

To be clear, RDC’s own contractual relationship with 

J&J is limited to a 2015 Distribution Agreement (Agreement),2

which is not alleged to be part of J&J’s Plan. The Agreement 

establishes RDC as an “Authorized Distributor of Record” and 

sets out various logistical obligations for its distribution of 

J&J’s pharmaceutical products, including Remicade. JA 169.

While the Agreement does not specify an exact purchase price

for Remicade, it does provide that J&J “will sell Products to 

the Distributor at the applicable Product’s Wholesale 

Acquisition Cost (the ‘WAC’ or ‘List Price’).” JA 172.

The Agreement also contains a “Dispute Resolution” 

term (i.e., arbitration clause), which provides, in pertinent part:

4.21 Dispute Resolution. (a) Any controversy or 

claim arising out of or relating to this agreement 

(including without limitation any controversy or 

claim involving the parent company, 

subsidiaries, or affiliates under common control 

of the Company or the Distributor (a 

“Dispute”)), shall first be submitted to mediation 

according to the Commercial Mediation 

Procedures of the American Arbitration 

Association (“AAA”) . . . .

(b) Any Dispute that cannot be resolved by 

mediation within 45 days . . . shall be resolved 

by arbitration in accordance with the 

Commercial Arbitration Rules of the AAA . . . 

 

2 The Agreement was executed between RDC and JOM 

Pharmaceuticals Inc., a J&J entity that handles J&J’s 

distribution contracts. 
6

and the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §1 et 

seq.

JA 188.

RDC brought claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the 

Sherman Act based on J&J’s alleged anticompetitive conduct, 

and J&J moved to compel arbitration on the basis that those 

claims “aris[e] out of or relat[e] to” the Agreement. The 

District Court denied J&J’s motion on the ground that RDC’s 

antitrust claims are not arbitrable because they “are separate 

from, and cannot be resolved based on,” the Agreement. In re 

Remicade Antitrust Litig., No. 18-cv-00303, 2018 WL 

5314775, at *8 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 26, 2018) (alterations in 

original). In so concluding, the District Court relied heavily on

this Court’s decision in CardioNet, Inc. v. Cigna Health Corp., 

751 F.3d 165 (3d Cir. 2014), where we explained—in the 

context of a clause providing for arbitration of disputes 

“regarding the performance or interpretation of the 

Agreement”—that whether the plaintiff’s claims were within 

the scope of the clause depended on whether “the claims at 

issue relate to the performance or interpretation of the 

Agreement.” Id. at 174–75. Although the arbitration clause in 

this case used significantly broader language, the District Court 

reasoned that RDC’s antitrust claims likewise “did not arise 

from the Agreement [with J&J],” In re Remicade Antitrust 

Litig., 2018 WL 5314775, at *8, because “whether [J&J] 

performed its obligations under the Agreement has no bearing 

on whether it harmed [RDC],” id. (alterations in original) 

(quoting CardioNet, 751 F.3d at 175). J&J timely appealed. 
7

II. Discussion3

On appeal, the parties dispute (A) as a threshold matter,

whether federal or state law governs the scope of an agreement 

to arbitrate, and (B) if state law does apply, whether the 

arbitration agreement here, properly interpreted, encompasses 

RDC’s statutory antitrust claims. We address each issue in 

turn. 

A. The Law Governing the Scope of Arbitration

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) reflects the 

“national policy favoring arbitration and places arbitration 

agreements on equal footing with all other contracts.” Buckeye 

Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 443 

(2006); see 9 U.S.C. § 2 (“A written provision in . . . a contract 

evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by 

arbitration a controversy . . . arising out of such contract . . . 

shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such 

grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any 

contract.”). Because the underlying principle of all arbitration 

decisions is that “arbitration is strictly a matter of consent,” 

 

3 The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1331 and 1367(a). Although there has been no final judgment, 

we have jurisdiction under the Federal Arbitration Act, which 

permits interlocutory appeals from an order denying a motion 

to compel arbitration. See Zimmer v. CooperNeff Advisors, 

Inc., 523 F.3d 224, 228 (3d Cir. 2008); 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(B) 

(providing that an appeal may be taken from an order denying 

a petition to compel arbitration). “We exercise plenary review 

over questions of law concerning the applicability and scope of 

arbitration agreements.” Zimmer, 523 F.3d at 228 (citation 

omitted).
8

Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 139 S. Ct. 1407, 1415 (2019) 

(alterations omitted) (quoting Granite Rock Co. v. Teamsters, 

561 U.S. 287, 299 (2010)), the “FAA requires courts to 

‘enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms,’”

Lamps Plus, 139 S. Ct. at 1415 (quoting Epic Sys. Corp. v. 

Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612, 1621 (2018)). But before compelling 

any party to arbitrate pursuant to the FAA, a court must 

consider two “gateway” questions: (1) “whether the parties 

have a valid arbitration agreement at all” (i.e., its 

enforceability), and (2) “whether a concededly binding 

arbitration clause applies to a certain type of controversy” (i.e., 

its scope). Id. at 1416–17 (citation omitted); see Kirleis v. 

Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C., 560 F.3d 156, 160 (3d Cir. 

2009). 

As we recently observed in Jaludi v. Citigroup, No. 16-

3577, 2019 WL 3558978 (3d Cir. Aug. 6, 2019), “[i]n applying 

state law at step one, we do not invoke the presumption of 

arbitrability.” Id. at *7 (citations omitted). “At step two, 

however, ‘in applying general state-law principles of contract 

interpretation to the interpretation of an arbitration agreement 

. . . due regard must be given to the federal policy favoring 

arbitration.’” Id. (quoting Volt Info. Scis., Inc. v. Bd. of Trs., 

489 U.S. 468, 475 (1989)). Here, because “the parties do not 

contest the enforceability of the Agreement’s arbitration 

provision,” In re Remicade Antitrust Litig., 2018 WL 5314775, 

at *3, this case turns on step two, that is, whether the alleged 

antitrust violations fall within the scope of the Agreement’s 

arbitration clause providing for arbitration of any “controversy 

or claim arising out of or relating to” the Agreement, JA 188.

The parties disagree as to the applicable body of law 

used to interpret the scope of that clause. While J&J argues 

that it “is a matter of federal law” and the federal presumption 
9

in favor of arbitration therefore ends the inquiry, J&J Br. 8–9 

(quoting Century Indem. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at 

Lloyd’s, 584 F.3d 513, 524 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting China 

Minmetals Materials Imp. & Exp. Co. v. Chi Mei Corp., 334 

F.3d 274, 290 (3d Cir. 2003))), RDC contends that courts must 

apply “‘ordinary state law principles to evaluate arbitration 

agreements’ (so long as they do not conflict with the FAA),” 

RDC Br. 18 (quoting MacDonald v. CashCall, Inc., 883 F.3d 

220, 228 (3d Cir. 2018)). The truth, we conclude, lies 

somewhere in between. While RDC’s view generally accords

better with Supreme Court precedent, at least as the starting 

point, see Lamps Plus, 139 S. Ct. at 1415, we take this 

opportunity to delve into the interplay between state and 

federal law and, in the process, to clarify our Court’s case law. 

To place our holding today in context, we briefly review 

our case law to date. Early on, we held that “whether a 

particular dispute is within the class of those disputes governed 

by the arbitration and choice of law clause is a matter of federal 

law.” Becker Autoradio U.S.A., Inc. v. Becker Autoradiowerk 

GmbH, 585 F.2d 39, 43 (3d Cir. 1978). But the Supreme Court 

disagreed, holding in First Options of Chicago, Inc. v Kaplan, 

514 U.S. 938 (1995), that “[w]hen deciding whether the parties 

agreed to arbitrate a certain matter (including arbitrability), 

courts generally . . . should apply ordinary state-law principles 

that govern the formation of contracts.” Id. at 944. And we 

acknowledged that disagreement in China Minmetals, where 

we observed that under Becker, “federal law applie[d] to the 

interpretation of arbitration agreements,” China Minmetals, 

334 F.3d at 290 (alterations and citations omitted), and then 

“recognized, however, that the Supreme Court in First 

Options stated that a court deciding whether the parties agreed 

to arbitrate a certain matter should apply ‘ordinary state-law 
10

principles governing contract formation,’” id. (citation 

omitted).

In China Minmetals, however, we did not have occasion

to hold that Becker was abrogated because “whether we 

appl[ied] federal law or New Jersey law, the result [was] the 

same.” 334 F.3d at 291. But in Moon v. Breathless Inc., 868 

F.3d 209 (3d Cir. 2017), the issue was squarely presented, and 

we definitively announced, as to “an arbitration clause’s 

scope,” that “[p]ursuant to the precedent of the Supreme Court 

of the United States, state law applies: ‘When deciding whether 

the parties agreed to arbitrate a certain matter (including 

arbitrability), courts generally . . . should apply ordinary statelaw principles that govern the formation of contracts.’” Id. at 

212–13 (quoting First Options, 514 U.S. at 944).

In the case before us today, notwithstanding First 

Options and Moon, J&J insists that an arbitration clause’s 

scope “is a matter of federal law,” so that the federal antitrust 

claims at issue here necessarily fall within the scope of the 

Agreement based on the federal presumption of arbitrability. 

J&J Br. 9 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Century Indem., 584 

F.3d at 524). J&J’s argument is premised on Century 

Indemnity—an opinion issued between China Minmetals and 

Moon. There, although we ultimately concluded that the 

arbitration clause was broad enough to include the dispute at 

issue “with or without the [federal] presumption of 

arbitrability,” Century Indem., 584 F.3d at 556, we also stated

that “the determination of whether ‘a particular dispute is 

within the class of those disputes governed by the arbitration 

clause . . . is a matter of federal law,’” id. at 524 (quoting China 

Minmetals ̧ 334 F.3d at 290). 
11

Century Indemnity is not controlling here for three 

reasons. First, as apparent, the language concerning the 

governance of federal law was ultimately dictum. It was also 

incomplete. The quoted language from China Minmetals was 

itself quoting Becker, and we proceeded to then acknowledge

in the very next sentence that Becker’s approach was contrary

to that taken by First Options. Century Indem., 584 F.3d at 

524 (quoting China Minmetals ̧ 334 F.3d at 230 (quoting First 

Options, 514 U.S. at 944)). Yet Century Indemnity quoted only 

the first sentence and omitted the second. Whether an 

oversight or omission, we must pay heed to intervening 

Supreme Court precedent. See Karns v. Shanahan, 879 F.3d 

504, 514–15 (3d Cir. 2018).

Second, when the choice of state or federal law 

governing the scope of an arbitration clause was squarely 

before us in Moon, we held, relying on First Options, that 

“state law applies” and proceeded to apply it. Moon, 868 F.3d 

at 213. We are bound to follow our Circuit’s precedent, so

Moon is controlling. See Karns, 879 F.3d at 514 (quoting 3d 

Cir. I.O.P. 9.1).

Third, as we also recognized in Moon, “the precedent of 

the Supreme Court of the United States” has made clear that

state law serves as the baseline for ascertaining an arbitration 

clause’s scope, notwithstanding the fact that federal law may

also, under certain circumstances, have a role to play. 868 F.3d 

at 212–13; see Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 

559 U.S. 662, 681 (2010) (“While the interpretation of an 

arbitration agreement is generally a matter of state law, the 

FAA imposes certain rules of fundamental importance, 

including the basic precept that arbitration is a matter of 

consent, not coercion.” (internal quotation marks and citations 

omitted)); Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, 556 U.S. 624, 630 
12

(2009) (holding that the FAA “creates substantive federal law 

. . . requiring courts to place [arbitration] agreements upon the 

same footing as other contracts,” but that nothing in the FAA 

“purports to alter background principles of state contract law 

regarding the scope of [arbitration] agreements” (internal 

quotation marks citation omitted)).

So, what is the role of federal law in interpreting the 

scope of an arbitration agreement? As we noted in Jaludi, “in 

applying general state-law principles of contract interpretation 

to the interpretation of an arbitration agreement . . . due regard 

must be given to the federal policy favoring arbitration.” 2019 

WL 3558978, at *7 (quoting Volt Info. Scis., 489 U.S. at 475). 

Thus, the federal law favoring arbitration embodied in the FAA 

“provides the default rule” where no state law definitively 

determines whether a given claim is inside or outside the scope 

of an arbitration agreement. Lamps Plus, 139 S. Ct. at 1418

(noting that the Supreme Court “ha[s] repeatedly held that 

ambiguities about the scope of an arbitration agreement must 

be resolved in favor of arbitration” (citations omitted)); 

see White v. Sunoco, Inc., 870 F.3d 257, 262 (3d Cir. 2017)

(“[T]he presumption of arbitrability applies only where an 

arbitration agreement is ambiguous about whether it covers the 

dispute at hand. Otherwise, the plain language of the contract 

holds.” (citation omitted)). And certain general principles of 

federal law apply in resolving that ambiguity, see, e.g.,

Battaglia v. McKendry, 233 F.3d 720, 725 (3d Cir. 2000) 

(noting that this presumption is “particularly applicable where 

the arbitration clause at issue is broad”), and enforcing 

arbitration agreements, see, e.g., Am. Express Co. v. Italian 

Colors Rest., 570 U.S. 228, 233 (2013) (noting that “courts 

must rigorously enforce arbitration agreements according to 

their terms (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 
13

Additionally, federal law may also come into play by 

way of preemption. For example, federal law will preempt 

otherwise-applicable state law that would invalidate an 

agreement to arbitrate not simply by application of “generally 

applicable contract defenses, such as fraud, duress, or 

unconscionability,” AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563

U.S. 333, 339 (2011) (quoting Doctor’s Assocs., Inc. v. 

Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681, 687 (1996)), but rather because it 

violates the FAA’s so-called “equal-treatment principle”—that 

is, if it “appl[ies] only to arbitration or [] derive[s] [its] meaning 

from the fact that an agreement to arbitrate is at issue,” Kindred 

Nursing Ctrs. Ltd. P’ship v. Clark, 137 S. Ct. 1421, 1426

(2017) (citation omitted). And just this past term, the Supreme 

Court held that a state law rule of contra proferentem was 

preempted to the extent it was used to construe an agreement 

to arbitrate claims on a classwide basis and, thus, to the extent 

it “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution 

of the full purposes and objectives of the FAA.” Lamps Plus, 

139 S. Ct. at 1416 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting 

Concepcion, 563 U.S. at 352); accord Stone v. Doerge, 328 

F.3d 343, 345 (7th Cir. 2003) (Easterbrook, J.) (explaining that 

while “most interpretive disputes must be resolved under state 

law,” federal law “does affect . . . the extent to which state law 

may specify special rules for arbitration: any rule of state law 

disfavoring or prohibiting arbitration for a class of transactions 

is preempted” (citation omitted)). 

In sum, while federal law may tip the scales in favor of 

arbitration where state interpretive principles do not dictate a 

clear outcome, see, e.g., White, 870 F.3d at 262, may displace 

state law through preemption, see, e.g., Lamps Plus, 139 S. Ct. 

at 1416, or may inform the interpretive analysis in other ways, 

see, e.g., Battaglia, 233 F.3d at 725; Am. Express, 570 U.S. at 
14

233, applicable state law governs the scope of an arbitration 

clause—as it would any other contractual provision—in the 

first instance.

4

 We therefore turn to the question of the scope 

of the arbitration clause before us, looking to the applicable 

state law—that of New Jersey.5

B. The Scope of the Agreement’s Arbitration 

Clause

When it comes to ascertaining the scope of an 

arbitration provision, New Jersey “[c]ourts have generally read 

the terms ‘arising out of’ or ‘relating to’ [in] a contract as 

 

4

Indeed, it would not be practicable, as J&J posits, to 

apply state law when it comes to the enforceability or validity 

of an arbitration provision (i.e. at step one), but to exclusively 

apply federal law when it comes to interpreting the provision’s 

scope (i.e. step two), particularly given how easily arguments 

pertaining to scope can be repackaged in terms of 

enforceability. See Oral Argument at 33:52-34:41 (RDC 

arguing that, whether viewed as a question of enforceability or 

scope, “we end up in the same place” because “if this 

agreement is construed to cover our antitrust claims, it is 

unenforceable”). 

5 The Agreement states only that “the arbitrator” (e.g., 

not the courts) “must interpret any dispute arising out of or 

relating to this agreement in accordance with the laws of New 

Jersey,” JA 188, and does not make explicit that the law of New 

Jersey governs interpretation of the contract generally. 

Nonetheless, as the parties proceed on that assumption, so do 

we. See Moon, 868 F.3d at 213 (assuming without deciding 

that the state law on which the parties agreed applied to the 

interpretation of an arbitration clause).
15

indicative of an ‘extremely broad’ agreement to arbitrate any 

dispute relating in any way to the contract.” Curtis v. Cellco 

P’ship, 992 A.2d 795, 802 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2010) 

(alterations in original) (citations omitted). “Such broad 

clauses have been construed to require arbitration of any 

dispute between the contracting parties that is connected in any 

way with their contract.” Id. (citations omitted). 

Consistent with that approach, the New Jersey 

Appellate Division has held that the phrase “[a]ny other 

unresolved disputes arising out of this Agreement”

encompasses antitrust claims challenging allegedly 

anticompetitive conduct that resulted in overcharges based on 

the underlying contract. EPIX Holdings Corp. v. Marsh & 

McLennan Cos., 982 A.2d 1194, 1199, 1204 (N.J. Super. Ct. 

App. Div. 2009), overruled in part on other grounds by Hirsch 

v. Amper Fin. Servs., 71 A.3d 849 (N.J. 2013). Relying on the 

Second Circuit’s similar reasoning in JLM Indus., Inc. v. Stolt–

Nielsen, S.A., 387 F.3d 163, 178 (2d Cir. 2004), the Appellate 

Division explained that “the claims the . . . defendants seek to 

arbitrate not only ‘arise out of’, but are undeniably intertwined 

with the contract . . . since it is the fact of [plaintiff’s] entry into 

the contract containing the allegedly inflated price and other 

oppressive terms that gives rise to the claimed injury.” EPIX

Holdings Corp., 982 A.2d at 1207. And on that basis, the court 

found it “difficult to conceive how plaintiff could maintain its 

claim for damages without reference to, and reliance upon, the 

underlying contract.” Id.; see Pop Test Cortisol, LLC v. Merck 

& Co., Inc., A-5403-12T4, 2014 WL 1660605, at *1, *6 (N.J. 

Super. Ct. App. Div. Apr. 28, 2014) (applying EPIX and 

holding that an arbitration provision applying to “[a]ll disputes 

arising out of or relating to this Agreement” encompassed state 

statutory claims and federal RICO claims). 
16

That reasoning applies equally here, where the 

gravamen of RDC’s complaint is that J&J’s anticompetitive

Plan “enabled [it] to sell its branded Remicade infliximab 

product at artificially inflated prices,” JA 132, and the only 

“inflated price[]” that could have caused RDC’s injury was the 

price it paid J&J for Remicade, i.e., the WAC or list price

provided in the Agreement, JA 172. Thus, RDC’s antitrust 

claims are “undeniably intertwined” with the Agreement 

because “it is the fact of [RDC’s] entry into the [Agreement] 

containing the allegedly inflated price . . . that gives rise to the 

claimed injury.”6 EPIX Holdings Corp., 982 A.2d at 1207; see 

also JLM Indus., Inc., 387 F.3d at 173, 176 (holding antitrust 

claims “aris[e] out of” contracts where the “central factual 

allegations of the complaint” involve “a core issue of the 

contracts between the parties—allegations that the price terms

set forth in those contracts have been artificially inflated as a 

result of the [anticompetitive conduct]” of the defendants); 

S+L+H S.p.A. v. Miller–St. Nazianz, Inc., 988 F.2d 1518, 1524 

 

6

J&J also argues that two later provisions in the 

“Dispute Resolution” section expand the universe of arbitrable 

issues beyond those “arising out of or related to” the 

Agreement: namely, portions of subsection (d) providing that 

“EACH PARTY IRREVOCABLY WAIVES ITS RIGHT TO 

TRIAL OF ANY ISSUE BY JURY,” and limiting an 

arbitrator’s award of enhanced damages, interest, or attorneys’ 

fees “EXCEPT AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY STATUTE.” 

J&J Br. 19 (quoting JA 188). The District Court rejected that 

argument, explaining that the structure of the “Dispute 

Resolution” section indicates that those provisions refer only 

to “claims otherwise encompassed by [subsection (a)],” In re 

Remicade Antitrust Litig., 2018 WL 5314775, at *5, and we 

agree. 
17

(7th Cir. 1993) (observing that a claim “that draws its very 

essence from the fact of and performance under the 

[Agreement] in question . . . necessarily is a claim that arises 

out of and relates to the Agreement” (first alteration in original) 

(internal quotation marks omitted)). 

RDC contends that ascertaining the scope of the 

arbitration clause by considering whether “the claim[s] would 

not exist” except for the Agreement, RDC. Br. 36, contravenes 

this Court’s recent admonition against “equat[ing] the meaning 

of ‘arising out of’ with the concept of but-for causation,” 

Reading Health Sys. v. Bear Stearns & Co., 900 F.3d 87, 100 

n.59 (3d Cir. 2018) (quoting Omron Healthcare, Inc. v. 

Maclaren Exports Ltd., 28 F.3d 600, 602 (7th Cir. 1994) 

(“‘Arising out of’ and ‘arising under’ are familiar phrases, and 

courts have resisted the siren call of collapsing them to but-for 

causation.”)). But we are not swayed by the fact that RDC’s 

antitrust claims could not exist but-for the Agreement; what is 

dispositive is that they cannot be adjudicated without

“reference to, and reliance upon,” it.

7

 EPIX Holdings Corp., 

982 A.2d at 1207. 

 

7 By contrast, many of the cases on which RDC relies 

(none of which are binding on this Court) involve antitrust 

claims that the court could “resolve . . . without reference to

the agreement containing the arbitration clause.” NCR Corp. 

v. Korala Assocs., Ltd., 512 F.3d 807, 814 (6th Cir. 2008) 

(emphasis added); see also AlliedSignal, Inc. v. B.F. Goodrich 

Co., 183 F.3d 568, 573 (7th Cir. 1999) (holding that antitrust 

claims alleging supracompetitive prices were not arbitrable 

because the underlying contract, “though it d[id] provide for 

shared information and cooperation, d[id] not regulate the price 

[defendant] may charge”). In any event, to the extent there 
18

And even if RDC’s inevitable reliance on the 

Agreement to prove injury were not enough to render its claims 

“arising out of” the Agreement, they need only “relat[e] in any 

way to the [Agreement]” to be “related to” it. Curtis, 992 A.2d 

at 802 (citation omitted). “An arbitration provision covering 

claims ‘relating to’ a contract is broader than one which covers 

claims merely arising out of a contract.” Yale Materials 

Handling Corp. v. White Storage & Retrieval Sys., Inc., 573 

A.2d 484, 486 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1990) (citation 

omitted). New Jersey courts have interpreted the term

“relating to” in the arbitration clause context to be “extremely 

broad,” Angrisani v. Fin. Tech. Ventures, L.P., 952 A.2d 1140, 

1146 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2008), which we understand

to mean—as we have held in the forum selection clause 

context—that a claim need only have “some ‘logical or causal 

connection’” to the agreement to be related to it, John Wyeth 

& Bro. Ltd v. Cigna Int’l Corp., 119 F.3d 1070, 1074 (3d Cir. 

1997) (quoting Webster’s Third New International Dictionary

1916 (1971)). Here, we have no difficulty finding that RDC’s 

antitrust claims “relate to” the Agreement, which sets the drug 

prices and governs the commercial relationship between the 

parties. 

RDC argues, in the alternative, that even if the 

arbitration provision is broad enough to encompass RDC’s 

antitrust claims, the claims are nonetheless outside the scope 

of the Agreement because the provision fails to comply with 

New Jersey’s rule of contractual interpretation requiring

waivers of constitutional or statutory rightsto be stated “clearly 

and unambiguously.” Atalese v. U.S. Legal Servs. Grp., 99 

 

may be tension between those holdings and that of the Second 

Circuit in JLM, New Jersey courts to date have embraced the 

latter. See EPIX Holdings Corp., 982 A.2d at 1207.
19

A.3d 306, 309 (N.J. 2014). Underlying New Jersey’s rule is 

the notion that agreements to arbitrate, “like any other contract, 

must be the product of mutual assent,” id. at 312–13 (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted), and because “an average 

member of the public may not know—without some 

explanatory comment—that arbitration is a substitute for the 

right to have one’s claim adjudicated in a court of law,” id. at 

313, arbitration clauses will not be construed to encompass 

constitutional or statutory rights absent some “concrete 

manifestation” of the intention to do so, Garfinkel v. 

Morristown Obstetrics & Gynecology Assocs., 773 A.2d 665, 

672 (N.J. 2001); see Moon, 868 F.3d at 214–15 (interpreting 

the rule as requiring an arbitration clause to contain three 

components: “First, it must identify the general substantive 

area that the arbitration clause covers”; “Second, it must 

reference the types of claims waived by the provision”; “Third, 

it must explain the difference between arbitration and 

litigation”). 

While the New Jersey Supreme Court has not 

definitively resolved the scope of the rule, it has applied it thus 

far only in the context of employment and consumer contracts. 

See Kernahan v. Home Warranty Adm’r of Fla., Inc., 199 A.3d

766, 784 (N.J. 2019) (consumer); Atalese, 99 A.3d at 312–13 

(N.J. 2014) (consumer); Martindale v. Sandvik, Inc., 800 A.2d 

872, 883 (N.J. 2002) (employment); Garfinkel, 773 A.2d at 

665 (employment); see also Moon, 868 F.3d at 214–15 

(employment). Moreover, in its most recent discussion of the 

rule, the New Jersey Supreme Court emphasized that “the 

consumer context of the contract [in Atalese] mattered,”

Kernahan, 199 A.3d at 777, and that the “twin concerns” 

animating its application of the rule there were that (1) “a 

consumer is not necessarily versed in the meaning of law-
20

imbued terminology about procedures tucked into form 

contracts” (as opposed to “individually negotiated” ones), and 

that (2) “plain language explanations of consequences had 

been required in contract cases in numerous other settings 

where a person would not be presumed to understand that what 

was being agreed to constituted a waiver of a constitutional or 

statutory right,” id. Neither concern applies to J&J and RDC’s 

Agreement. 

Even before Kernahan’s strong intimation that the rule 

applies only where the parties have unequal bargaining power 

and levels of sophistication—as in the employment and 

consumer contexts—the New Jersey Appellate Division has 

held on several occasions that the rule “d[oes] not extend . . . 

to commercial contracts,” i.e., contracts that resulted “from a 

lengthy negotiation process” and where no party was an 

“average member[] of the public.”8 Victory Entm’t, Inc. v. 

Schibell, No. A-3388-16T2, 2018 WL 3059696, at *8 (N.J. 

Super. Ct. App. Div. June 21, 2018) (citation omitted); see also 

Columbus Circle N.J., LLC v. Island Constr. Co., No. A-1907-

15T1, 2017 WL 958489, at *3 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Mar. 

13, 2017) (rejecting application of Atalese to the contract at 

issue, which was not “a consumer contract of adhesion where 

[one party] . . . possessed superior bargaining power and was 

the more sophisticated party” (alteration in original) (citation 

omitted)); Gastelu v. Martin, No. A-0049-14T2, 2014 WL 

10044913, at *6 & n.4 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. July 9, 2015) 

 

8 Where an unanswered question of New Jersey law 

requires us to “predict how the Supreme Court of [New Jersey] 

would decide the question,” we give “due regard” to decisions 

of the intermediate appellate courts. Specialty Surfaces Int’l, 

Inc. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 609 F.3d 223, 237 (3d Cir. 2010) 

(citation omitted).
21

(“Parties to a commercial contract can express their intention 

to arbitrate their disputes rather than litigate them in court, 

without employing any special language . . . . In the present 

case . . . we are dealing with commercial business transaction 

[sic] and, therefore, the standard is not as stringent [as the one 

put forward in Atalese].”). 

Here, there is no dispute that the Agreement is a 

commercial contract or that both J&J and RDC are “highly 

sophisticated participant[s] in the pharmaceutical market,” J&J 

Br. 27, as opposed to “average member[s] of the public,” 

Atalese, 99 A.3d at 312. Taking into account the illustrative 

statements in Kernahan, and affording “due regard” to the 

decisions of the intermediate appellate courts declining to 

extend the rule to commercial contracts, Specialty Surfaces, 

609 F.3d at 237, we conclude that the rule does not apply to the 

Agreement between J&J and RDC in any event, and thus does 

not narrow the scope of the arbitration provision. 

Because we conclude that the rule does not apply here, 

we need not address whether the Agreement’s arbitration 

clause satisfies it or, if it does not, whether notwithstanding the 

New Jersey Supreme Court’s statement in Atalese that the rule 

is “not specific to arbitration provisions,” 99 A.3d at 313, it 

would be preempted—either because it is “too tailor-made to 

arbitration agreements . . . to survive the FAA’s edict against 

singling out those contracts for disfavored treatment,” Kindred 

Nursing Ctrs., 137 S. Ct. at 1427, or because it “interferes with 

fundamental attributes of arbitration,” Lamps Plus, 139 S. Ct. 

at 1418.9 

 

9 We note that the New Jersey Supreme Court may 

address this issue in Skuse v. Pfizer, Inc., 202 A.3d 1 (N.J. 
22

Accordingly, because RDC’s antitrust claims “aris[e] 

out of or relate[] to” the Agreement, they must be arbitrated. 

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we will reverse the judgment 

of the District Court and remand for further proceedings 

consistent with this opinion.

 

Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019), certif. granted, C-922 Sept. Term 

2018, 2019 WL 2403144 (N.J. June 3, 2019); see also 

Kernahan, 199 A.3d at 786 (Albin, J., concurring) (explaining 

that New Jersey requires “that an arbitration clause must 

simply explain to the average consumer what it forecloses . . . 

[and] do[es] not discriminate against an arbitration agreement 

by requiring it to [explain its purpose]”); Atalese, 99 A.3d at 

313–14 (giving examples of the New Jersey “clear and 

unmistakable” requirement being applied in various nonarbitration contexts).