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 o. 08- 1693

HO W AR D H ESS DEN TAL LA BO RA TOR I ES I NC OR PORA TED an d PHI LI P GU TTI EREZ

d/b/ a D EN TU RE S PLU S, on behal f of themsel ves and al l ot her s s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed,

A p p e llan ts

v. DENTS P LY I NTE RNATI ONA L, I NC.

N o. 08- 1694

J ER SEY D EN TA L LA BO RA TO RI ES, f/k/ a H ow ar d H es s D ent al L abor at or i es I ncorpor at ed and P H ILIP G U T T IER E Z , d/b/ a D entur es Plus, on behal f of themsel ves and al l ot her s s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed,

A p p e llan ts

v.2 D E N T S P L Y IN T E R N A T IO N A L , IN C .; A C C U B IT E , IN C .;

A D IU M D E N T A L P R O D U C T S , IN C .; AR NOL D DE NT AL S UP P L Y C OM P ANY; AT L ANT A DE NT AL S UP P L Y C OM P ANY; BE NC O DE NT AL CO M P ANY; BU RK HAR T DE NT AL S UP P L Y C OM P ANY; D A R B Y D E N T A L L A B O R A T O R Y S U P P L Y C O ., IN C .; D E N T A L S U P P L IE S A N D E Q U IP M E N T , IN C .; E D E N T A L D IR E C T .C O M , IN C ., a s s u c c e s s o r t o C ru tc h e r D e n ta l, I n c ., d/b/ a Lar r yH ym an, as A s s i gnee f ort he B enef

i tof C re d ito rs o f

E d e n ta lD ir e c t.C o m , In c .; H E N D O N D E N T A L S U P P L Y , IN C .; H E N R Y SC H E I N , I N C

. , and i t s aff i l i at es in c lu d in g , w ith o u t lim ita tio n , Z a h n D e n ta l C o ., In c .;

IO W A D E N T A L S U P P L Y C O .; J AHN DE NT AL S UP P L Y C OM P ANY; J B D E N T A L S U P P L Y C O ., IN C .; J O H N S O N & L U N D C O ., IN C .; K E N T U C K Y D E N T A L S U P P L Y C O M P A N Y , IN C .,

a /k /a K D S C L iq u id a tio n C o rp .; M A R C U S D E N T A L S U P P L Y C O .; M O H A W K D E N T A L C O ., IN C .; N O W A K D E N T A L S U P P L IE S , IN C .; P AT T E RS ON DE NT AL CO M P ANY, i t s subsi diar i es, predecessors , successors , assi gn s, affil i at es and rel at ed co m pan i es; P E A R S O N D E N T A L S U P P L IE S , IN C .; Z I L A , I N C

. , as s ucce s s ort o R ykerD ent al of K entucky , I nc.H onor abl e Paul S. D i amond, U ni t ed St at es D is t r i ct * J udge fort he E as t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on. 3 O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fo r th e D istri ct of

D elaw are ( D

. C

. N os . 1- 99- cv- 00255 and 1- 01- cv- 00267) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sue L. R obi ns on

A r gued J anuary27, 2010 B e f o re : F U E N T E S a n d F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudges , a n d DI AM OND, D is tr i ct Judge

. * ( Fi l ed: A pr i l 16, 2010 ) T hom as A

. D ubbs ( A r gued) R i char d J offe L abat on Suchar ow 140 B r oadw ay N ew Y or k, N Y 10005 C o u n se l fo r Ap

p e lla n ts E r i c J

. M cC ar t hy M ar gar etM

. Z w i s l er( A r gued) L atham & W atki ns 555 11t h St r eet , N

. W

. , Sui t e 1000 W as hi ngt on, D C 20004 C ouns el f orD ent s pl y I nt er nat i onal

, I nc.4 W alt er H

. D ran e, Jr. Pot t er , A nder s on & C or r oon 1313 N or t h M ar ketSt r eet , 6t h Fl oor P. O

. B ox 951 W i l m i ngt on, D E 19801 C o u n s e l fo rA c c u B ite , In c ., He n d o n D e n ta l S u

p p ly , In c ., and Henr

y Sche i n, I

nc. D or ot hyA

. H i ckok Paul H

. Sai nt
- A nt oi ne ( A r gued) D rin k e r, B id d le & R e a th 1 8 th & C h e rryS tre e ts O n e L o g an S q u are Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 D arr y l A

. Par s on D rin k e r, B id d le & R e a th 1100 N or t h M ar ketSt r eet , Sui t e 1000 W i l m i ngt on, D E 19801 C ouns el f orB enco D entalC o. P a tricia L . E n e rio Pr oct orH eym an 1116 W es tSt r eet W i l m i ngt on, D E 19801 C ouns el f orB urkhar tD entalSuppl y C o. H en ryE

. G all ag h er, Jr

. C o n n o lly , B o v e , L o d g e & H u tz 1007 N or t h O r ange Str eet5 P. O

. B ox 2207 W i l m i ngt on, D E 19899 C ou nself

or D arby D entalL ab oratory Suppl y C o. , I nc. A n toine tt e D

. H u b b ard J ames J

. M ar on M ar on, M arvel , B r adl ey& A nder s on 1201 N or t h M ar ketSt r eet , Sui t e 900 W i l m i ngt on, D E 19801 C ouns el f orP ears on D entalSuppl i es , I nc. W i l l i am J. W ade R i char ds , L ayt on & Fi nger O n e R o d n eyS q u are 920 N or t h K i ng St r eet W i l m i ngt on, D E 19899 M ar gar etM

. Z w i s l er L atham & W atki ns 555 11t h St r eet , N

. W

. , Sui t e 1000 W as hi ngt on, D C 20004 C ouns el f orP at t ers on D entalC om pany C

. S cottR eese C ooch & T ay l or 824 M ar ketSt r eetM al l , Sui t e 1000 P. O

. B ox 1680 W i l m i ngt on, D E 19899- 1680 C ouns el f orJB D entalSuppl

y C o. , I nc.6 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge

. T hes e tw o ant i t rus tcas es , br oughtbyt w o dent al l abor at or i es agai ns t an ar t i fi ci al t oot h m anufa ctur er and manyof i t s deal er s , ar e bef

or e us fort he s econd t i m e. I n t he fi r s tof the tw o c a se s, w e m u st d e c id e w h e th e r th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rly d e n ied th e p lain ti f

f s ’ m o tio n f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t o n th e ir m onopol i zat i on cl ai m agai ns tt he manufactur eras w el l as t he C o u rt’s d e n ial o f th e p lain tiff s’ m o tio n f

o r re c o n sid e ra tio n o f

its su m m a ryju d g m e n t ru li n g a n d su b se q u e n t d ism iss a l o f th e ir compl ai nt
. I n t he s econd c as e, w e mustdeci de w hethert he D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlyd ism iss e d th e p lain tiff s’ c o n sp ira c yto re stra in tra d e a n d c o n sp ira c yto m o n o p o lize c laim s ag a in st b o th t h e ma n u f

a c tu r e ra n d i t s d e a l e r s fo rf a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m. A l t hough fors l i ght l ydi ffe r ent r eas ons t han t hos e art i cul at ed by the D istri ct C o u rt , w e ag ree w ith the D istr ic t C o u rt ’s con cl usi on s and w i l l affirm i t s ruli ng s. I. T hes e appe al s ar i s e fr om t w o r el at ed ant i t rus tcas es fi l ed i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C our t for t he D i s t r i ctof D el aw ar e: H o w a rdH

e ss D e n ta l L a b o ra to r ie s, In c . v. D e n tsp ly I nt er nat i onal

, I nc. (“ Hess ”) and Jer

s ey D entalLaborat or i es v.T hese cas es w er e br oughtas put at i ve cl as s act i ons but 1 have ne verbeen c er t i fi ed as s uch. 7 D ent s pl y I nt er nat i onal

, I nc. (“ Jer s ey D ental ”)

. B eca us e w e s et

1 for th t he fa ctual backgr ound of both cas es i n grea t d et ai l i n a p ri o r a p p e a l, se e H

o w a rdHe ss D e n ta l L a b s. In c . v. D e n tsp ly I nt ’ l , I nc. , 4 2 4 F

. 3 d 3 6 3 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ) (“ Hess I ”), w e re cit e h ere o n lyth o se f

a c ts re q u ire d f

o r th e re so lu tio n o f

th is a p p e a l. T he pl ai nt i ffs i n bot h ca ses ar e tw o dent al l abor at or i es ( r efe r r ed t o i n t hi s opi ni on as t he “Pl ai nt i ffs ”)

. O ne of the defe ndants i n bot h Hess and Jer s ey D ental , D e n tsp ly I nt ernat i onal , I nc. , m anufa ctur es ar t i fi ci al t eeth, among ot her t hing s, w hi ch i ts el l s t o t he Pl ai nt i ffs and otherl abor at or i es th ro u g h a n e tw o rk o f

a u th o riz e d d e a ler s (r e f e rre d to in th is opi ni on as the “D eal er s ”) , s ever al of w hi ch ar e named defe ndant s onl yi n Jer

s ey D ental

. T h e P lai n ti ff s u se D en tsply ’s ar t i ficial t eeth t o m ake de ntur es . I n bot h cas es , t he Pl ai nt i ffs essent i al l yal l ege thatD ents ply“forecl osed it s com peti t ors’ ac ce ss to [ D ]ea lers byex p li cit lyag ree ing w ith so m e [ D ]ea lers t hatt heyw i l l notcarr ycert ai n compet i ng br ands of t eeth and by i nduci ng ot her [D ] eal er s not t o carr yt hos e compet i ng br ands of te e th ” a n d th a t D e n ts p ly, “b ya g re e m e n t [ w ith ] its [ D ]e a le rs , . . . s et [] t he [D ] eal er s ’ r es al e pr i ces . ” Hess I , 4 2 4 F

. 3 d at 36 7

. In s o doi ng, t he Pl ai nt i ffs al l ege, D ent s pl y“ca us ed [the] Pl ai nt i ffs t o p urchase D ents ply ’s t eet h at ar t i fi ci al l yhigh pri ces and l ose p ro f its f ro m u n re a liz e d s a le s o f

D e n ts p ly’s c o m p e tito rs ’ t e e th .” I d.8 T he Pl ai nt i ffs br oughtt he Hess su it a g a in st D e n tsp lyin 1 9 9 9 , alle g in g se v e ra l an tit r u s t c o n sp ira c ies a n d se e k in g b o th m onet aryand i nj unct i ve r el i ef. T he D i s t r i ct C o u rtgr ant ed D ent s pl y ’ s s ubs equentm ot i on for su m m aryj udgm enton t he Pl ai nt i ffs ’ damages cl ai m , concl udi ng t hatt he Pl ai nt i ffs l acke d stan d ing u n d er I

ll in o is B ric k

C o . v. Illin o is , 431 U

. S. 720 (19 77)

. I n 2001, t he Pl ai nt i ffs br oughtt he Jer s ey D entalsu it agai ns tD ent s pl yas w el l as s ever al of i t s D eal er s , agai n al l egi ng s ever al ant i trus t cons pi r aci es and agai n as ki ng fordamages and i nj unct i ve r el i ef, and t he D i s t r i ct C our t agai n di s m i s s ed t he Pl aintiffs ’ damages cl ai m s on t he bas i s of I l l i nois B r i ck

. T he D istr ic t C o u rt a lso d e n ied th e P lain tiff s’ m o tio n f

o r le a v e to amend t hei rc o mpl a i n t , c o n c l u d i n g th a tth e pr opos ed amendm ent w oul d be f

u ti l e. T he Pl ai nt i ffs t her eaf t erbr oughtan in ter lo c u to rya p p e a l in th is C o u rt. O n a p p e a l, w e a f

f ir m e d in p a rt a n d re v e rs e d in p a rt
. Hess I, 424 F. 3d 363. W e hel d t hati n Hess t he Pl ai nt i ffs coul d not r ecove r d am ages undera coc ons pi r at orexce pt i on ora contr ol ex ce p ti on t o I

l l i nois B r i ck

and coul d notr ecove rnon- over char ge damages

. I n J

e rs e y Dent al , w e h el d t hatt he Pl ai nt i ffs di d not have st atut or y s t andi ng t o r ecove r l os t pr ofi t s damages butt hat t hey di d h a v e s t a tu t o r ys t a n d i n g t o r e c o v e rd a ma g e s f r om D ents plyfor i t s al l eged pri ce-fi xing con spi racy w i t h it s D eal ers . W hi l e w e adopt ed a “ l i m i t ed” ge ner al cocons pi r at orexce pt i on to I l l i nois B r i ck , we f

o u n d t h a te x c e p t i o n i n a p p l i c a b l e t o t he Pl ai nt i ffs , and t h u s concl uded thatt heycoul d notpur s ue d a m a g e s u n d e r t h e c o c o n s p ir a to r e x c e p tio n . Hess I , 424 F. 3d at 383- 84. I n s um m ary , w e hel d t hat t he Pl ai nt i ffs coul d not r ecove ranydamages i n Hess and mostdamages i n Jer s ey D ental

. W e conc l uded thatt he P lai n ti ffs di d have s t andi ngT he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o gr ant ed the mot i ons of seve r al of 2 t he D eal er s i n Jer

s ey D entalt o di s m i s s t he amended compl ai nt

9 undert he coc ons pi r at orexce pt i on forover char ge damages “ca us ed byt he al l eged r et ai l pr i ce- fi xi ng cons p ir acy , al t hough notfort he al l eged e xcl us i ve- d ea li n g cons pi r acy . ” I d. at384 (fo o tno te om itted). O n r emand, t he Pl ai nt i ffs fil ed a f i ve- countamended compl ai nti n Jer

s ey D ental

. In C o u n t O n e , the yre -a lleg e d th e ir cons pi r acyt o r es t r ai n t r ade c l ai m u n d erSect i on 1 of the S h e rm a n A c t. C o u n ts T w o a n d T h re e a ss e rte d c o n s p ira c ies to m onopoli ze u n derSect i on 2 of the Sherm an A ctagai ns tt he Deal er s and D ent s pl y , r es pect i vel y . C ountT w o s oughtdamages as w ell as inj unct i ve and de cl ar at oryr el i ef w hi l e C ountT hr ee s oughtonl y i nj unct i ve and decl ar at or y r el i ef. C ount s Four and Fi ve as s erted co ns pi r aci es t o r es t r ai n t r ade unde rSect i on 1 of t h e S h e r m a n A c ta g a i n s tt h e D e a l e r s a n d D e n t s p l y, r e s p e c t i v e l y, agai n s eeki ng bot h damages as w el l as i nj unct i ve r el i ef a s t o t he D e a ler s a n d o n ly in

ju n c tiv e a n d d e c lar a to ryre lief a s to D ent sp ly

. M ot i on pr act i ce e ns ued. I n Jer s ey D ental , t he D eal er s m oved t o di s m i s s C ount s T w o and Fourof the amended compl ai ntunder Fede r al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 6) , as di d D ent s pl yas t o C ount s T hr ee a nd Fi ve. I n Hess , t he Pl ai nt i f f s mov e d f o rs u mmar yj udgm enton t hei rm onopol i zat i on c l a i m u n d e rS e c t i o n 2 o f t h e S h e r m a n A c t a g a i n s tD e n t s p l y. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the Pl ai nt i ffs ’ s um m aryj ud g m ent m ot i on i n Hess an d g ran ted b o th the D ea lers’ an d D en tsply ’s r e s p e c t i v e mot i o n s t o d i s mi s s i n Je rs ey D ental , and di s m i s s ed C o u n ts T w o th ro u g h F iv e o f th e a m e n d e d c o m p lain t. H ow ard 2forl ack of per s onal j uri sd ic t i on and i m pr opervenue. T hat por t i on of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng i s notati s s ue her e. 10 Hes s D entalLabs. , I

nc. v. D ent

s pl y I nt ’ l , I nc. , 516 F. Supp. 2d 3 2 4 (D

. D el. 2 0 0 7 ) (“ H ow ard Hess I

”). T he Pl ai nt i ffs i n Hess s ubs equent l y fi l ed w hatt heys t y l ed as a mot i on t o s uppl ementt he r ecor d and t o amend t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt’s s u m m a ryju d g m e n t ru lin g , as k in g f o r p e rm iss io n to pr ovi de the D i s t r i ctC our t w i t h evi dence t o s how t he exi s t ence of ant i compet i t i ve i nj ur y . M eanw hi le, in Jer s ey D entalt he Pl ai nt i ffs m oved for cert i fi cat i on of appeal abi l i t y of the D i s t r i ct C o u rt ’s dism issal of their c lai m s in the am en d ed co m p lai n t. In rul i ng on t he m ot i on t o amend a nd t he mot i on forcert i fi cat i on, H ow ar d H es s D en tal

Labs. , I nc. v. D ent

s pl y I nt ’ l , I nc. , N os. 99- 255 & 01- 267, 2008 U

. S. D i s t
. L E X I S 1487 ( D

. D el

. J an. 8, 2 0 0 8 ) (“ H

o w a rdH ess II ”) , t he D i s t r i ctC our tconst rued the m o tio n to a m e n d a s o n e f o r re c o n sid e ra tio n a n d d e n ied it, f in d in g th a t th e P lain tiff s’ p ro p o se d e v id e n c e w a s n o t re lev a n t. T he D i s tr ic tC our tgr ant ed the mot i on forcert i fi cat i on and cert i fi ed forappea l t he di s m i s s al of C ount s T w o t hr ough Fi ve of t he amended compl ai nti n Jer s ey D ental . T h e D istric t C o u rt in Hess no t ed that“t he p art i es, t hroug h thei r l i t i gation strat egies , have made i taw kw ar d pr ocedur al l yt o cl os e the ca s e for p u rp o se s o f

a p p e llate re v iew , D e n ts p lyh a v in g f a iled to f

ile e ith e r a m o tio n to d is m is s o r a m o tio n f o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t.” H o w a rd Hess II, 2008 U

. S. D i s t
. L E X I S 1487, at*13- 14. T he C o u rtthere fo re “ o rde r[e d ] th e p arti es to eith er e n ter a sti p u lat ion o r, if th e ya re u n a b le to c o m e to a g re e m e n t, to b o th su b m it p r o p o s e d o r d e r s t o a c c o mpl i s h c l o s u r e of Hess , ei t hert hr ough11 dism issal ort hr ough t he entr yof j udgm ent
. ” I d. at *1 4

. In r es pons e t o t he D i s t r i ctC o u rt ’ s or der , D ent s pl ym oved fort he d i s mi s s a l o f

t he Hess compl ai nt
. T he Pl ai nt i ffs oppos ed that m ot i on but , t o “ac comm odat e” a n appea l as t hey puti t , echoi ng t he D i s t r i c tCou r t ’ s d i r e c t i v e , s u b mi t t e d a p r o p o s e d o r d er d ism issi n g the c o m p lai n t w ith p rejud ice. T h e D istri ct C o u rt appr oved thator derand di s m i s s ed the compl ai nti n Hess . T h e P lain tiff

s h a v e f iled tim e ly n o tice s o f a p p e a l in b o th ca ses . I n Hess , t h e y c h a l l e n g e t h e Di s tr i c t Cou r t ’ s d e n i a l of their su m m ar y j udgm ent m ot i on on C ount T w o’s m onopo l i z a t i o n c l a i m, deni al of t hei r m ot i on for r econs i der at ion, and di s m i s s al of thei rcompl ai nt
. I n Jer s ey D ental , t heychal l enge the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s var i ous gr ounds for di s m i s s al of C ount s T w o t hr ough Fi ve forfai l ure to s t at e a c l a i m. II. Th e Di s t r i c tCo u r th a d j u r i s d i c t i o n un de r 2 8 U. S

. C. § 1331 and w e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U

. S. C

. § 1291. O u r rev iew o f th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s de n ial o f su m m ary ju d g m e n t is p le n a r y . C ham bers v. Sch. D is t
. of P hi l a. B d. of E duc. , 5 8 7 F

. 3 d 1 7 6 , 1 8 1 ( 3d Ci r . 2 0 0 9 )

. W e a p p l yt h e s a me t e s t th e D is tr ic t C o u rt s h o u ld h a v e u s e d

. Or i t a n i Sa v . & Loan As s ’ n v . Fi d e l i t

y & Dep o s i t Co. o

f Md. , 9 8 9 F. 2d 635, 637 ( 3d C i r . 1993)

. Sum m aryj udgm enti s appr opr i at e w hen “the pl eadi ngs, the di s coveryand di s cl os ur e mat er i al s on fi l e, and anyaff i davi t s s how t hatt her e i s n o genui ne i s s ue as t o any12 m at eri al factand t hat t he m ov ant i s ent i t l ed to j ud gm ent as a m att er o f law

. ” F ed

. R

. C iv. P. 56 (c). W e r evi ew a deni al of a m o t i on forr econs i der at i on for ab u se of d iscreti o n , b u t w e rev iew the D istric t C o u rt ’s under l y i ng l egal det erm i nat i ons d e novo and fac tual d eterm ination s fo r clea r erro r. Max’s Seaf ood C af é v. Q ui nt er os , 1 7 6 F

. 3 d 6 6 9 , 6 7 3 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 9 ). O u r re v iew o f

th e D istric t C o u rt’s d ism iss a l u n d e r R u le 1 2 (b )( 6 ) i s p le n a ry. N

a tio n w id e L ife In s. C o . v. C o m m o n w e a lth Land Ti tl e In s. C o. , 5 7 9 F .3 d 3 0 4 , 3 0 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). W h ile “[ a]n ti tru st cl aim s . . . are su b ject t o the n o ti ce -plea d ing stan d ard o f F e d e r a l Ru l e o f

Ci v i l P r o c e d u r e 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) , . . . [ s ] u c h c l a i ms m us t
. . . al l ege f

act s s uffi ci entt o r ai s e a r i ghtt o r el i ef a bove the s pecul at i ve l evel

. ” B r oadcom C or p . v. Q ual com m I

nc. , 501 F. 3d 297, 317 (3d C ir

. 2007) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)

. T hati s , t he “compl ai ntm us tcont ai n s uffi ci entfac tual m at t er , acc ept ed as tru e, to ‘ stat e a cl aim to r eli ef that is p laus ible o n its fa ce . ’” A sh cr of tv. I qbal , 1 2 9 S. Ct

. 1 9 3 7 , 1 9 4 9 ( 2 0 0 9 ) ( q u o t i ng B e ll A tl. C o rp . v. T

w o m b ly , 550 U

. S. 544, 570 ( 2007) )

. “A cl ai m has fac i al pl aus i bi l i t yw hen the pl ai nt i ff pl eads fac tual cont entt hat al l ow s t he courtt o dr aw t he r eas onabl e i n fe renc e thatt he defe ndanti s l i abl e fo rt he mi s conductal l eged. ” I d. ( ci t i ng T w o m b ly , 5 5 0 U

. S

. at 55 6 ). III . O uranal y s i s i s bi fur cat ed. W e begin w ith t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s rul i n g s i n Hess and tur n nextt o i t s rul i ngs i n Jer s ey D ental

.13 A . Hess 1. D e ni al of

t he M ot i on f

or Sum m ar y Judgment I n Hess , C ount T w o of the Pl ai nt i ffs ’ compl ai ntas s er t ed a monopol i zat i on cl ai m i n vi ol at i on of S ect i on 2 of the Sher m an A c t an d so u g h t an in

ju n c tio n e ss e n tiallyto p re v e n t D e n tsp ly fr om bot h i m pos i ng excl us i ve deal i ng agr eement s o n the D e a ler s a n d re talia tin g a g a in st th o se D e a ler s tha t d o n o t su b m it t o D ents ply ’s dem and s. Sect i on 2 of the Sher m an A cti m pos es l i abi l i t yon
“ [ e ]v e ryp e rso n w h o sh a ll m o n o p o lize , o r a ttem p t to m onopol i ze, orcombi ne orcons pi re w ith anyot herper s on or per s ons , t o m onopol i ze a nypar tof the tr ade orcomm er ce among t he s ever al St at es [. ] ” 15 U

. S. C

. § 2. A pr i vat e part ym ay pur s ue i nj unct i ve r el i ef a gai ns t“thr eat ened l o ss o rdamage” s t e mmi n g f

r o m a v i o l a t i o n o f

Se c t i o n 2

. 1 5 U. S. C. § 2 6. To m eett hei ri ni t i al s um m aryj udgm entbur den on thei rcl ai m for i njunct i ve rel i ef, t he P l ai nti ffs had t o show “(1) t hreat ened l oss ori nj ur ycogni zabl e i n equi t y ; ( 2) pr oxi m a t el yr es ul t i ng fr om t he al l eged a nt i t rus tvi ol at i on. ” McC ar thy v. R ecor dex Se r v. , I nc. , 80 F. 3d 842, 856 ( 3d C i r . 1996) ( ci ta t i ons om i t t ed)

. “[T] he i ni t i al ques t i on is . .

. ‘ w hether[the Pl ai nt i ffs ] ha[ve ] r ai s ed a genui ne i s s ue of materi al f acts uffi ci entt o s how a thr eatof ant i t rus ti nj ur y ’ i f [D ent s pl y ] engage [s ] i n fu ture vi ol at i ons of t he type al l eged. ” B

- S St eel of Kan. , I nc. v . T ex . I ndus

. , I nc. , 439 F. 3d 653, 668 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng R

. C

. B igel ow , I nc. v . Uni l e v e rN. V. , 867 F. 2d 102, 107 ( 2d C i r . 1989) )

. I n ot her w or ds , t o m eet t hei r bur den t he Pl ai nt i ffs had t o “demonstr at e a s i gni fi cantt hr eatof i nj ur yfr om an i m pendi ng vi ol at i on of the14 anti t rust l aw s or from a con t em po rary viol at i on l i ke lyto cont i nue or r ecur . ” Zeni th R adi o C or p. v. H az el t i ne Rese ar ch, I nc. , 3 9 5 U

. S

. 1 0 0 , 1 3 0 (19 6 9 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). T he Pl ai nt i ffs s oughtt o m eett hei rbur den pri m ari l yby rel y i ng on t he doctr i ne of col l at er al es t oppel and t hi s C o u rt ’s deci s i on i n U

ni t ed Stat es v. D ent

s pl y I nt er nat ion a l, I

nc. , 399 F

. 3 d 1 8 1 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ) (“ D e n tsp ly ” ort he “G overnm ent C as e”)

. T her e the U ni t ed S tat es s ued D ent s pl yfor mon o p o l i z a t i o n i n v i o l a t i o n o f Se c t i o n 2

. Th i s Cou r tr e v e r s ed t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s p o st
- t r i al j udgm entforD ent s pl yand r emanded w i t h i ns t ruct i ons t o gr antt he i nj unct i ve r el i ef s ought b yth e g o v e rn m e n t. I

d. a t 1 9 7

. W e c o n c lu d e d th a t D e n tsp ly bot h pos s es s ed monopol ypow er i n t he art i fi ci al t oot h m arket a n d h a d u s e d th a t p o w e r t o f o re c lo s e c o m p e titio n . I d. at196. O urconcl us i on w as pr e d i c a t e d p r i ma r i l yon D ent s pl y ’ s adopt i on of “D eal erC r i t er i on 6, ” a pol i cyt hatpr ohi bi t ed dea l er s fr om “add[ i ng] furt hert oot h l i nes [ ot hert han thos e pur chas ed fr om D ent s pl y ] t o t hei rpr oductoffe r i ng” and thatw as en for ced a g a in s t m o s t D e a le rs . I d. at 18 5 (qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). I n t hei rs um m aryj udgm entm ot i on i n Hess , t he Pl ai nt i ffs a rg u e d th a t o u r h o ld in g in th e G o v e rn m e n t C a se th a t D e n tsp ly had enga ged i n ant i compet i t i v e p r a c t i c e s c o mpe l l e d a n i nfer ence of ant i t rus ti nj ur yt o t he Pl ai nt i ffs

. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s agr eed, concl udi ng t hatw hi l e s uch an i nfer ence w as cert ai nl ypl aus i bl e, a det erm i nat i on of i nj ur y - i n- fac tt o t he Pl ai nt i ffs w as not necessaryt o o ur de c ision i n the G ov ernm ent C ase. A s aB e c a u s e t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y vel non of col l at er al es t oppel 3 i s a ques t i on of l aw , w e or di nar i l yexer ci s e pl enaryr evi ew over a d is tr ic t c o u r t ’s c o lla te ra l e s to p p e l a n a lysis

. See C os pi t o v. A t t or ney G en. of

the U ni t ed Stat es , 5 3 9 F

. 3 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 1 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 8 ) (p e r c u ria m ); D elaw ar e Ri ver P or tA uth. v. Fr at er nal O r derof P ol i ce , 2 9 0 F

. 3 d 5 6 7 , 5 7 2 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ). H o w ev er, w her e, as her e, a pl ai nt i ff s eeks t o col l at er al l yes t op a def endant fr om r el i t i gat i ng an i s s ue fr om pr evi ous l i t i gat i on i n w hi ch the d e f e n d a n t w a s a p a rtyb u t th e p lain tiff w a s n o t, ou r re v iew is lim ited to d e c id in g w h e th e r th e d istric t co u rt a b u se d its d is c re tio n . See J

e a n Al ex a n d e rCos met i c s , I n c . v . L’ Or e a lUSA, I nc. , 4 5 8 F .3 d 2 4 4 , 2 4 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); Sm ith v . H o ltz , 210 F. 3d 1 8 6 , 1 9 9 n .1 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ); R a y tec h C o rp . v. W

h ite , 5 4 F. 3d 1 8 7 , 1 9 0 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 5 ). 15 cons equenc e, t he D i s t r ict C our tfound thatcol l at er al es t oppel d i d n o ta p p l y. 3
U ndert he doctr i ne of c ol l at er al es t oppel , “once an i s s ue i s actual l yand nec es s ar i l ydet erm i ned b y a courtof compet ent ju risd ictio n , tha t d e ter m in a tio n is c o n c lu siv e in su b se q u e n t su its bas ed on a di ffe r ent caus e of act i on i nvol vi ng a part yt o t he pr i or l i t i gat i on. ” Mont ana v. U ni t ed Stat es , 440 U

. S. 147, 153 ( 1979) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)

. T he fol l ow i ng fourel ement s ar e req u ir ed f o r th e d o c trin e to a p p ly : “( 1 ) th e id e n tica l issu e w a s p re v io u sly adj udi cat ed; ( 2) t he i s s ue w as actual l yl i t i gat ed; ( 3) t he pr evi ous d e ter m in a ti o n w a s n e c e ss a ryto th e d e c isio n ; an d (4 ) th e p a rty bei ng pr ecl uded fr om r el i t i gat i ng t he i s s ue w as ful l yr epr es ent ed i n t he p r i oract i on. ” Sz ehi ns kyjv. A t t or ney G en. of the U ni t ed St at es , 4 3 2 F

. 3 d 2 5 3 , 2 5 5 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ) (cit ati o n o m itted).16 For i nt err el at ed r eas ons , w e do notfi n d t hatanyof the fi r s tt hr ee e l ement s r equi r ed for col l at er al es t oppel i s m ether e. B u t m o s t s ig n if

ica n tly , w e d o n o t f

in d th a t th e th ird e lem e n t is sati sfi e d

. See H

a w k sb ill S e a T u rtle v . Fe d . E m e rg e n c

y M g m t. A gency , 126 F. 3d 461, 475 (3d C ir

. 1997) ( “the appl i cat i on of col l at er al es t oppel i s i nappr opr i at e” i f anyone el ementi s not m et ). T he R est at em ent descr i bes t hat el em ent as foll ow s: I f i s s ues ar e det erm i ned but t he j udgm enti s not depen d e n tupon t he det erm i nat i ons , r el i t i gat i on of t hos e i s s ues i n a s ubs equentact i on betw een t he par t i es i s notpr ecl uded. S uch det erm i nat i ons have the cha r acteri st i cs of di ct a, and maynot o rd in a rilyb e th e su b

jec t o f a n a p p e a l b yth e p a rty againstw ho m t heyw ere m ade. I n these ci r cumst ance s , t he i nt er es ti n pr ovidi ng an o p p o rtu n i tyf

o ra cons i der ed det erm i nat i on, w hi ch if a d v e rse m a y b e th e su b jec t o f a n a p p e a l, out w ei ghs t he i nt erest i n avoi di ng t he bur den of r el i t i gat i on. R estatem en t ( S ec o n d ) of Ju d g m en ts § 2 7 cm t. h (19 8 2 ). “[ I]n d e t e r mi n i n g wh e t h e rt h e i s s u e wa s e s s e n t i a l t o t h e j u d g me n t , we m us t l ook t o w hether t he i s s ue w as cr i t i cal t o t he j u d g m en t or m er el ydi ct a. ” N

a t’l R .R

. P a ss e n g e r C o rp . v . P a . P u b . Uti l. C om m ’n , 288 F. 3d 519, 527 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted). A ppl y i ng t hes e s t andar ds t o t hi s cas e, w e do notfi nd t hat anyi nfer ence of ant i compet i t i ve i nj ur yt o t he Pl ai nt if fs w as es s e n t i a l t o o u rd e t e r mi n a t i o n t h a tDen t s p l yh a d c o mmi t t e d an17 ant i t rus tvi ol at i on. T he Pl ai nt iffs ’ cl ai m fori nj unct i ve r el i ef h i n g e s on w heth e rt h e yh a v e e s t a b l i s h e d a n t i t ru s ti n j u r y . To es t abl i s h as m uch, t heyhad t o s how i nj ur y“of t he type the ant i t rus tl aw s w er e desi gned t o pr event and thatfl ow s fr om t hat w hi ch makes [D ent s pl y ’ s ] act s unl aw ful

. ” C ar gi l l , I nc. v. Monf or t o f C o l o. , I

nc. , 479 U

. S. 104, 113 ( 1986) ( quot i ng B r uns w i ck Corp. v. P uebl o B ow l

- O

- M at , I nc. , 429 U

. S. 477, 489 ( 1977) )

. I n t he G overnm entC as e, w e had t o deci de, i n r el evant par t , w hetherD ent s pl y ’ s conductw as ant i compet i t i ve. T o t hat e n d , o u r a n a ly sis h a d tw o f o c a l p o in ts: f

irst, w h e th e r D e n tsp ly pos s es s ed monopol ypow er ; and s econd, w hetherD ent s pl yus ed th a t p o w e r to e d g e o u t co m p e titio n . See D e n tsp ly , 399 F. 3d at 1 8 6

- 8 7

. Our f

i n d i n g t h a t Den t s p l y ’ s c o n d u c t l e d t o pr i ce i ncr ease s i n t he r el evantm arketdi d notr equi r e us t o fi nd t hat any o n e ot hert han D ent s pl y ’ s compet i t or s w as i nj ur ed. Put anotherw ay , w e di d notneed t o concl ude thatanyups t r eam p u r c h a s e r s , s u c h a s t h e P l a i n t i f f s , w e r e t h r e a t e n e d w i t h i n j u r y. Si m pl ybeca us e s uch a c oncl us i o n m aybe gl eane d fr om t he G overnm entC as e does notm ean thati tw as es s ent i al t o our h o ldin g . C

f. Lynne C ar olFas hi ons , I nc. v. C r ans t on P r i nt W or ks C o. , 453 F. 2d 1177, 1183 ( 3d C i r . 1972) (“[ P] ar t i es sh o u ld b e e sto p p e d o n lyo n iss u e s th e y a c tu a llyd e e m im p o rta n t, and noton i nci dent al m at t er s . ”)

. U nder t hes e ci r cumst ance s , t he D i s t r i ctC our t di d not abus e i t s “br oad di s cr et i on” i n concl udi ng th a t D e n tsp lysh o u ld n o t b e p re c lu d e d f ro m d e f e n d in g itse lf a g a in s t th e P la in tif

f s ’ c la im f

o r in ju n c tiv e re lie f

. See P arklane H osi ery C o. v. Sh ore , 4 3 9 U

. S

. 3 2 2 , 3 3 1 (19 7 9 ). I n addi t i on t o decl i ni ng t o col l at er al l y es t op D ent s pl y , t he D istric t C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th e P lain tif f s d id n o t m e e t th e ir s um m aryj udgm entb ur den bec aus e theym ade no s how i ng of18 ant i t rus ti nj ur y . T h e C our tr eas oned thatbeca us e the G overnm entC as e i nj unct i on al r eadypr ohi bi t ed D ent s pl yfr om p u r s u i n g t h e v e r yc o n d u c tt h a tg a v e r i s e t o t h e P l a i n t i f f s ’ c l a i m, the P lai n ti ff

s h ad to “d e m o n s trate a n ee d fo r fu rth er, non- dupl i cat i ve m ea s ur es t o t hos e al r eadyi n pl ace . ” H ow ard Hess I , 516 F. Supp. 2d at335 ( footnot e omi t t ed)

. I n t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s vi ew , t he Pl ai nt i ffs fai l ed t o pr es entanyevi dence of a t hr eatof futur e i nj ur yand ther efor e fe l l s hor tof thatm ark. I n U ni t ed Stat es v. B or den C o. , 347 U

. S. 514 ( 1954) , t he S up rem e C ou rtheld t hat a pr i vate l i t i gan t ’s aw ard of an anti t rust i nj un cti o n agai ns ta def endantdoes notoper at e as a bart o t he g o v e r n me n t ’ s r i g h tt o p u r s u e i t s o wn i n j u n c t i o n a g a i n s tt h e s a me d e f e n d a n t, ex p lain in g th a t th e in ju n c tiv e re lief

a f f o rd e d p riv a te l i t i gan t s “supplem ents go vernm ent enforcem ent of t he an t i t rust law s” a n d that p ri v ate a n d p u b lic a n ti tru st i n jun cti o n s “w ere des i gned t o be cumul at i ve, notm utual l yexcl us i ve. ” I d. at518 (ci t at i on s om i t t ed ); see al s o i d. at519 ( “D i ffe r entpol i cy co n side r at i ons govern eac h of thes e. T heym aypr ocee d s i m ul t aneous l y ori n di s r egar d of ea ch other

. I n s hor t , t he G overnm ent ’ s r i ght and dutyt o s eek a n i nj unct i on t o pr ot ectt he publ i c i n t e r e s te x i s twi t h o u tr e g a r d t o a n yp r i v a t e s u i tor d ec ree . ” (intern al cit ati o n o m itted)). T h e P lain tiff

s a rg u e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt “ a ttem p ted to m aneuve rar ound [ B or den ] on t he ground that , i n B or den , unl i ke her e, i t w as t he pr i vat e pl ai nt i ff r ather t han the G overnm entw ho w as fi r s tt o obt ai n t he r eques t ed r el i ef. ” ( A ppel l ant s ’ B r . 32 ( r e c o r d c i t a t i o n o mi t t e d )

. ) I n t h e i r v i e w, u n d e rt h e a n t i t ru s tl a ws
“ r e l i e f ma yb e gr a n t e d t o p r i v a t e p l a i n t i f f s b a s e d o n t h e s a me th re a t th a t ju stif

ied a p rio r g ra n t o f

sim ila r in

ju n c tiv e re lief

to19 t he G overnm ent
. ” (I

d. a t 3 3 .) It is tru e th a t B or den re f u se d to s ayt hatt he exi s t ence of one type o f injunc t i on, publ i c or p riv a te, c a n n o t at le a st b e tak e n in to a c c o u n t b y a trial ju d g e in w ei ghi ng w hethera s ubs equentpl ai nt i ff, w het herpubl i c or p ri v a te , h a s s h o w n th e re q u is ite a n titr u s t in ju ry. See 347 U

. S. at 520. B utw e do notunder s t and B o rd en , or anyotheranti t rust author i t y , t o r equi r e the Pl ai nt i ffs t o have e s t abl i s hed a ne ed for an injun cti o n that w as “n o n -du p li ca ti v e,” in the D istri ct C o u rt ’s w ords, as B or den m akes cl ear t hat pr i vat e and publ i c i nj unct i ons m a ye x is t c o n c o m ita n tly. See als o N

. J. W ood F i nis hi ng C o. v. Mi nn. Mi ni ng & M

f g. C o. , 3 3 2 F

. 2 d 3 4 6 , 3 5 0 (3d C ir

. 1 9 6 4 ). A l t ho ug h the l aw i s cl ear that publi c and pri vate ant i t rust i nj unct i ons m aycoexi s tw i t houtr egar d for one another , not hi ng i n B or den in tim a te s th a t a p riv a te litig a n t is re liev e d o f its evi dent i arybur den of s how i ng an ent i t l ementt o i nj unct i ve r el i ef w hen the governm enthas al r eadyobt ai ned i t s ow n i n junct i on. W e s ai d as m uch i n Mi d- W est P aperP r oduct

s C o. v. C ont i nentalG r oup, I

nc. , 596 F. 2d 573 ( 3d C i r . 1979)

. T her e the di s t r i ct cour t gr ant ed sum m ary j udgm ent for t he def endant s on t he ant i t rus tcl ai m s of pr i vat e pl ai nt i ffs , eff ect i vel yhol di ng t hat t he pl ai nt i ffs w er e notent i t l ed t o an i nj unct i on. W e r ever s ed. W e di s agr eed w i t h the defendant s ’ cont ent i on t hat“r emand [w as ] unnece s s ary beca us e . . . i t[w as ] evi dentt hatt he pl ai nt i ffs [w er e] notent i t l ed t o i nj unct i ve r el i ef. ” I d. at 594 n. 85. I n our vi ew , t he pl ai nt i ffs w ere not“nec es s ar i l yfor ecl os ed fr om i nj unct i ve re l i ef byt he mer e pende ncyof the governm entand di r ectpur chas ers ui t s fors i m i l arr emedi es [. ] ” I d. U nder B or den , w e thoughtt he pl ai n t i ffs ’ i nj unct i on cl ai m coul d go forw ar d if they w er e “a bl e t o es t abl i s h a ‘ s i gni fi cantt hr eatof i nj ur y ’ undergener al equi t ypr i nci pl es . ” I d. ( quot i ng B or den ,20 3 4 7 U

. S

. at 51 9 ). W e f u rth er su g g ested that th e d istri ct co u rt coul d “cons i derw hetheranym eani ngful di ffe r ence exi s t s i n t he pr es ent cas e ‘ w i t h r es pect t o t he par t i es capa bl e of enfor ci ng’ t he i nj unct i on, orw hethert he r eal i t yher e i s t hat‘ one i nj unct i on i s as eff ect i ve as 100, and conc om i t ant l y , t hat100 i n jun cti o ns ar e no more eff

ec ti v e t han one[

. ] ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng H

aw ai i v. St andar d O i lC o. , 4 0 5 U

. S

. 2 5 1 , 2 6 1 (19 7 2 )). For purpos es of thi s appea l , tw o i m por t antpr i nci pl es e me r g e f r o m Mi d- W

es tP aper . F ir st, u n d er B or den a tri al co u rt f a c e d w ith a n in

ju n c tio n re q u e st m a yf a c to r in to its e q u itab le an aly sis th e e f

f ec t of an o ther inju n cti o n o n the p lai n ti ff ’s s how i ng of i nj ur y . T her efor e, t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s cons i der at i on of the G overnm entC as e i nj unct i on i n i t s as s es s m en t o f t he Pl ai nt i ffs ’ r i g htt o i nj unct i ve r el i ef w as noti m per m i s s i bl e per se . W hi l e the D i s t r i ct C our t l i kel y as cr i bed t oo m uch w ei ghtt o t he G o v e rn m e n t C a se in

ju n c tio n in a ss e ss in g th e P lain tiff s’ r ig h t to t hei row n i nj unct ion, t he C our tcl ear l yal s o found thatt he P lain tif f s f a iled to m e e t th e ir b u rd e n o f p re se n tin g e v id e n c e to s how t h at theyw er e ent i t l ed t o s uch r el i ef. A nd t hatbr i ngs us t o Mi d- W

es tP aper ’ s s eco n d i m por t antpr i nci pl e: a pl ai nt i ff b ea rs the obl i g ati o n o f p rese n ti n g ev iden ce d em o n str ati n g injury even w her e anotheri nj unct i on i s al r eady i n pl ace . T her e ca n be n o d o u b tt h a tt h e P l a i n t i f f s l e f tt h a t o b l i g a t i o n u n f

u l f i l l e d

. As th e y did befo re t he D i stri ct C ou rt , t he Plai nti ffs referu s to se v e ra l fact ors that, i n thei r vi ew , show w hyan inj un ct i on is nece s s ary . Si gni fi cant l y , how ever , t he P l ai nt i ffs have pa ckage d t hos e fa ct or s as m er e ar gum ent s , notevi dence. T hatappr oach d o e s n o t c a rr yth e d a ya t s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. C f

. Thornt on v. U ni t ed Stat es , 4 9 3 F

. 2 d 1 6 4 , 1 6 7 (3d C ir

. 1 9 7 4 ).21 T he Pl ai nt i ffs cl ai m , fori ns t ance , t hat the t erm of the G overnm ent C as e i nj unct i on – s even a nd one- hal f y ear s – i s not l ong enough t o ens ur e thatt heyw i l l nots ufferhar m . T hey asse rt that D en tsplysti ll retains m o n o p o li sti c m ark et sh are d e sp ite tha t in

ju n c tio n a n d w ill b e a b le to r e s u m e its ant i compet i t i ve pr act i ces once the i nj unct ion expi r es beca us e, a c c o rd in g to th e m , the m a rk e t f o r a rtific ial te e th is re lativ e ly stag n an t. B u t eve n assu m ing that a n a n titrust de fe n d an t’ s “abi l i t y ” t o engage i n ant i compet i t i ve conduc tw ere, s t andi ng al on e , e no ug h t o j us t i fyi nj un c t i ve r e l i e f, t he Pl a i nt i ffs’ p rog n o sis of

D en tsply ’s fu ture c o n d u ct i s u n su p p o rt ed b yrec o rd e v id e n c e . In a n ye v e n t, i f th e P lain tiff

s a re th re a ten e d w ith anti t rusti njuryator near the en d o f th e G ov ernm ent C ase i nj unct i on’ s t erm , not hi ng p rohi bi t s t hem from pet i t i oni ng a cour tfo r re li ef a tt hatpoi nt
. T he Pl ai nt i ffs al s o r el yon t he all eg ed n ati o n w ide p rese n ce o f 7 , 0 0 0 d en tal labo ratories tha t are “bett ers i tuat ed to moni t orD ent s pl y ’ s excl us i ve dea l i ng p ra c tice s[ .]” ( A p p e llan ts’ B r. 3 8 .) T e lli n g ly , the P lain tiff s c ite n o a u th o rityf

o r th e p ro p o sitio n th a t a p lain tiff m a ya v o id its o b li g ati o n o f s h o w in g injurym ere lyb yclaim ing to b e a m o re e f fe cti v e a n ti tru st po li ce m an than the g o v ern m en t, an d w e a re a w a r e o f n o s u c h a u th o ri ty. C

f

. Massachu set t

s v. Mi crosoft C or p. , 373 F. 3d 1199, 1245 ( D

. C

. C i r . 2 0 0 4 ). Si m i l ar l y , t he Pl ai nt i ffs r eques t t hat D ent s pl y be pr ohi bi t ed “fr om att endi ng anym eet i ng orphone ca l l betw een a nydent al deal erand any dent al l abor at or y ” ( A ppel l ant ’ s B r . 40- 41) , but have e l ect ed not to p ro v id e a n ye v id e n c e th a t an ysu c h m e e tin g s o r p h o n e c a lls ar e now i nj ur i ng t hem or w i l l s oon do s o. Fi nal l y , t he Pl ai nt i ffs po i nt t o D ents ply ’s pu rport ed u nrepen t ance regar d in g i t s past conductas a bas i s fo ri nj unct i ve r el i ef. T heyas s er tt hat

“ D e n tsp ly still re f

u se s to a c k n o w led g e th e w ro n g f u l n a tu re o f

its22 conduct

. ” ( A ppel l ant s ’ B r . 44 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)

. ) T he ant i t rus t l aw s , how ever , aff or d no r el i ef on that b a s is a lo n e . C

f. Sec. & E

xch. C om m ’n v. B on a stia , 614 F. 2d 908, 912 ( 3d C i r . 1980)

. I n a nut s hel l , t he var i ous exampl es of all eg ed injurythe P lai n ti ff s h av e b rou g h t t o o u r att e n ti o n are p u rely s p ec u lat ive a n d thu s are insu ff ici en t t o justi fyan aw ard o f i n jun cti v e rel ief. See , e. g. , C i t y of P i t t s bur gh v. W es tP enn P ow erC o. , 1 4 7 F

. 3 d 2 5 6 , 2 6 9 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 8 ). A r evi ew of thei rpl eadi ngs befor e the D i s t r i ctC ou rt re f lec ts th a t th e P lain tiff

s f o r th e m o st p a rt so u g h t to m e e t th e ir su m m aryjud g m en t bu rde n sim p lyb ytel li n g the D istri ct C o u rt w hatt heydi d notn ee d t o do. Speci fi cal l y , i n t hei rm ovi ng paper s t he Plai n ti ffs as s er t ed thatt heydi d notneed t o pr ove i r r epar abl e injury ; di d nothave t o s how t hatt heyhad s t andi ng t o s ue fordamages ; and w er e notbarr ed fr om obt ai ni ng i nj unct ive re l i ef mer el ybeca us e the governm enthad al r eady s ecur ed one a gai ns tD ent s pl y . I m por t ant l y , fol l ow i ng r emand fr om t hi s C our t ’ s pr i orappea l , t her e i s no hi nt i n t he r ecor d t hat t he Pl ai nt i ffs s oughtt o engage i n anyaddi t i onal di s coveryor m ade a nyeff

or t t o i nt r oduce any fac tual m at er i al fort he D i s t r i ct C ou rtto c o n sider

. T he P l ai nti ffs’ s t rat egybetr ay s a m i s under s t andi ng of the s um m aryj udgm ent s t age of l i t i gat i on. A par t y m ovi ng fors um m aryj udgm entm us tcl eart w o hur dl es t o m eeti t s i ni t i al bur den. I t m u st sh o w t hat( 1) t her e ar e no g e n u in e q u e stio n s o f

m a ter ial f

a c t a n d (2 ) th e p a rtyis e n tit led to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tter o f law . F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c ); s ee McC ar thy , 80 F. 3d at847. B yt el l i ng t he D i s t r i ctC our tw hat t h e yd i d not need t o es t abl i s h, t he Pl ai nt i ffs di d notl eap hi gh enough. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni alN ei t herpar t ycont es t s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s i nt erpr et at i on 4 o f t h e P l a i n t i f

f s ’ mo t i o n a s o n e f

o rr e c o n s i d e r a t i o n , a n d t h u s we a c c e p t th a t in ter p re tatio n a s c o rre c t. 23 o f th e P lain tiff

s’ m o tio n f

o r s u m m a ryju d g m e n t o n th e ir m o n o p o l i z a t i o n c l a i m a g a i n s tD e n t s p l y. 2. D eni al of

t he M ot i on f

or R econs i derat i on A fter the D istri ct C o u rt d en ied th eir m o ti o n fo r sum m ary jud g m en t, the P lai n ti ff

s ask ed the C o u rtto am en d it s su m m ary jud g m en t ru li n g an d fo r pe rm issi o n to su p p lem en t th e re co rd w i t h evi den ce that, i n their view , dem on strat ed th e anti t rust injurythe D istri ct C o u rth ad fo u n d w an ti n g . T h e D istri ct C o u rt c o nst rued t he m oti on as one f or r econ si derat i on and den i ed it , c o n c lu d in g th a t th e e v id e n c e th e P lain tiff s w e re se e k in g to i nt r oduce w oul d be r el evantonl yi f theyhad s how n t hat D en tsply ’s an ti co m p eti ti v e c o n d u ct w o u ld li k elyrec u r. 4 B eca us e theyhad fa i l ed t o m ake such a s how i ng, t he D i s t r i ct C our tr eas oned, r econs i der at i on w as unw arr ant ed.

“ T h e p u rp o se o f

a m o tio n f

o r r e c o n sid e ra tio n . . . is to corr ect m anifest err ors of l aw or fact or t o prese n t n e w ly di sco ver ed evi dence

. ” M a x ’s S e a fo o d C a fé , 176 F. 3d at677 ( quot i ng H

ars co C or

p. v. Zl otni cki , 7 7 9 F

. 2 d 9 0 6 , 9 0 9 (3d C ir

. 1985) )

. “A ccor di ngl y , a j udgm entm aybe al t er ed oramended i f the part ys eeki ng r econs i der at i on s how s atle as tone of the fol l ow i ng gr ounds : ( 1) an i nt erveni ng change i n t he contr ol l i ng law ; (2 ) th e a v a ilab ili tyo f n e w e v id e n c e th a t w a s n o t av a ilab le w hen the courtgran t ed the mot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent ; or24 ( 3) t he nee d t o corr ecta cl ear err or of l aw orfac tort o pr event m ani fes ti nj us t i ce. ” I

d. (cit ati o n o m itted). T he s t at ed ai m of the Pl ai nt i ffs ’ m ot i on w as t o s ubm i tt he v e rye v id e n c e th e D istric t C o u r t h a d f o u n d th e yh a d f

a iled to pr es ent in thei rs um m aryj udgm entm ot i on. H ow ever , “new e v id e n c e ,” f

o r re c o n sid e r a ti o n p u rp o se s, d o e s n o t re f e r to evi dence t hata part yobt ai ns ors ubm i t s t o t he court aft eran adver s e rul i ng. R ather , new evi dence i n t hi s co n t extm eans ev iden ce that a p artyco u ld n o t earli er su b m itto the co u rt b e c a u s e th a t e v id e n c e w a s n o t p re v io u s ly av a ila b le

. S e e De Long Corp. v. R aym ond I nt ’ l , I nc. , 622 F. 2d 1135, 1139- 40 ( 3d C ir . 1 9 8 0 ), over r ul ed on othergr ounds by C r oker v. B oei ng C o. , 6 6 2 F

. 2 d 9 7 5 (3d C ir

. 1 9 8 1 ) (e n b an c). N o thing in the rec o rd su g g e sts th a t th e e v id e n c e th e P lain tiff s s o u g h t to p re se n t p o sts umma r yj u d g me n twas u n a v a i l a b l e t o t h e m w h e n t h e yf i l ed t heirsum m aryj ud gm ent m oti o n . U nd er these ci rcum st ances, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notabu se it s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng t he Pl ai nt i ffs ’ m ot i on forr econs i der at i on, and w e t her efor e w i l l not u p s e t th a t ru lin g . S ee H ars co , 7 7 9 F

. 2 d at 90 9 (distr ictco u rt co rrectl yd id n o t con sid e r af fid av itfil ed af

ter sum m ary j udgm en twas g r a n t e d b e c a u s e i t“ was a v a i l a b l e p r i o rt o t he su m m aryjud g m en t”). 3. D i s m i s s al of

t he c ompl ai nt A ft er deny i ng t he P l ai nt i ffs ’ m ot i on foran i nj unct i on and t hei r m o ti o n forr econs i der at i on, t he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed the p ro c e d u ra lly “ a w k w a rd ” p o s tu re o f th e c a s e . H o w a rdHess II, 20 0 8 U

. S

. D i st
. L E X IS 14 87 , at*1 4. T hat aw kw ardness, acc or di ng t o t he D i s t r i ct C our t , s t emm ed fr om t he fa ctt hatt he25 d e n ia l o f th e P lain tiff

s’ s u m m a ryju d g m e n t m o tio n e f f e c tiv e ly barr ed t hem fr om pur s ui ng t hei rcl ai m , t hus pl aci ng t hei rs ui ton a dea d- end r oad. A s a cons equenc e, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi r ect ed th e p a rties to “ su b m it e ith e r a stip u latio n o r c o m p e tin g o rd e rs in Hess and Jer

s ey D ental i n or der t o acc om m odat e a cons ol i dat ed appea l

. ” I

d. at *16. D ent s pl y t her eaf t er m oved t o di s m iss t he compl ai n t w it h pr ej udi ce i n l i ghtof thator der

. T he Pl ai nt i ffs oppos ed D ent s pl y ’ s m ot i on buts ubm it te d t hei row n pr opos ed o rd e r d ism iss in g th e c o m p lain t w h ile p u rp o rtin g to re se rv e th e ir r i ghtt o appea l anydi s m i s s al

. T he D i s t r i ctC our tappr oved that or der , t her ebydi s m i s s i ng t he compl ai ntw i t h pr ej udi ce a nd d e n y in g D e n tsp ly ’s m o tio n to d ism iss a s m o o t. W e s e e n o e r r o r i n t h e D i s t r i c tC o u r t ’ s a c t i o n . O r d i n a r i l y, a dist ri ct court ’ s deni al of a mot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent m eans onl yt hatt her e r emai n genui ne ques t i ons of m at er i al fac t f o r r e s o lu tio n b y th e f

a c t f in d e r. See Ku tn e rB u i c k , I n c . v . A m. Mot ors C or

p. , 868 F. 2d 614, 619 ( 3d C i r . 19 8 9 ). B uther e the D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the Pl ai nt i ffs ’ s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on beca us e itfound thatt her e w er e no genui ne ques t i ons of m ateria l fac t
. T o t he ext entt he Pl ai nt i ffs t houghtt hatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of thei rs um m ary judgm entm ot i on en ti tl ed them to p u rsue their claim s an yfu rth er, th eyw ere m ista k e n , as a p lain tiff a ss e rtin g a n titru st c laim s d o e s n o t g e t to a ju ry si m p ly b yf

ilin g a c o m p la in t a n d h o p in g f o r th e b e s t. C

f. E as tm an Kodak C o. v. I m age Techni cal

Serv s . , I nc. , 50 4 U. S. 4 5 1 , 4 6 7 -6 9 (1 9 9 2 ); Tow n Sound & Cust om Tops, I nc. v. C h ryslerMot ors C or

p. , 959 F. 2d 468, 481 ( 3d C i r . 1992) ( en banc)

. T he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded t hatt he Pl ai nt i ffs coul d not pr evai l on t hei r cl ai m fori nj unct i ve r el i ef a gai ns tD ent s pl yand, as w e expl ai ned ea r l i er , w e agr ee w i t h t hat co n cl us i on. A nd26 b e c a u s e t h e P l a i n t i f

f s c o u l d g o n o f

u r t h e r o n t h a tc l a i m, we lik e w ise a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u r t’ s d ism iss a l o f th e ir compl ai nt
. T he Pl ai nt i ffs have gi ven us no compel l i ng r eas on t o di s turb t hatdi s p o sit i on. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of the compl ai nti n Hess . B. Jers ey D ental I n Jer s ey D ental , th e P lain tiff s alle g e d a c o n sp ira c y to m o n o p o li ze i n v i olat i on of S ect i on 2 o f t he S herm an A ctin C ount s T w o and Three o f t hei ramended compl ai ntand a c o n sp ir a c yto re stra in tra d e in v io latio n o f S e c tio n 1 in C o u n ts F ou r and F i ve. A S ect i on 2 co nspir acy cl ai m has fou r el em ents : ( 1) an agr eementt o m onopol i ze; ( 2) an over tacti n fur t her ance o f th e c o n sp ir ac y ; (3) a sp ec ifi c inten t t o m o n o p o li ze ; and (4) a caus a l c o n n e c t i o n betw een the cons pi r acyand the i nj ur yal l eged. See , e. g. , U

ni t ed Stat es v. Y

el l ow C ab C o. , 332 U

. S. 218, 224- 25 (1 9 4 7 ); A m . Tobacco C o. v. U ni t ed Stat es , 328 U

. S. 781, 788, 80 9 (194 6). A plai nti ff asser t i ng a S ect i on 1 clai m al so m ust al l ege f ou r el em ents : “(1) con cert ed acti on byt he d efen dan t s; ( 2) t hatpr oduced a nt i

- compet i t i ve ef fec ts w i t hi n t he r el evant pr oductand geogr aphi c mar ket s ; ( 3) t hatt he conc er t ed ac t i ons w er e i l l egal ; and ( 4) t hat i t w as i nj ur ed as a pr oxi m at e r es ul tof t he conc er t ed ac t i on. ” G or don v. Lew is t ow n H os p. , 423 F. 3d 1 8 4 , 2 0 7 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). T he Di s t r i c tCou r td i s mi s s e d a l l f o u rc o u n t s o n s e v e r al gr ounds

. T he C our tdi s m i s s ed C ount s T hr ee and Fi ve, w hi ch s oughti nj unct i ve r el i ef a gai ns tD ent sp l y , fort he s ame r eas ons i tdeni ed the Pl ai nt i ffs ’ s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on i n Hess . T he C our t di s m i s s ed C ount s T w o and Four , t o t he ext entt heys oughtI n t hei rbr i efs , t he Pl ai nt i ffs do noti m pugn t he D i s t r i ct 5 C ou rt ’s dis m i ssal of their cl ai m s for i njunct i ve r el ief a g a i nst D ent s pl yas as s er t ed i n C ount s T hr ee a nd Fi ve t o t he ext entt he C ou rtfou nd t hat the P l ai nti ffs l acked st and i ng t o p ursue t ho se cl ai m s gi ven t heir fai l ure to al l ege fact s dem on strat i ng anti t rust i nj ur y . A s s uch, t he Pl ai nt i ffs have w aived a nycont es tt o t hat p o rt io n o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u r t ’ s r u l in g . S e e H o lk v . Sn a

p p le B eve r age C or

p. , 5 7 5 F

. 3 d 3 2 9 , 3 3 7 n . 5 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ). T he def endant s ar gue thatt he Pl ai nt i ffs s hould be 6 j udi ci al l yes t opped fr om cl ai m i ng, as t heydo i n t hei ramended compl ai nt , t hatt he D eal er s w er e D ent s pl y ’ s e q u a l s i n t he al l eged c o n s p ir a c yb e c a u se o f

th e P lain tiff

s’ p re v io u s a lleg a tio n s in 27 d amages fr om t he D eal er s , on t he bas i s of I l l i n o is B r i ck , concl udi ng t hatt he cocons pi r at or exce pt i on of t hatcas e di d not appl ybeca us e D ent s pl yand the D eal er s w er e notcoequa l par t i ci pant s i n t he cons pi r acy . T he D i s t r i ct C our t al s o di s m i s s ed C o u n t s T w o a n d T h r e e , a g a i n s t th e D e a l e r s a n d D e n t s p l y, re sp e c ti v e ly, b a se d o n its d e ter m in a tio n th a t th e P lain tiff s d id n o t su ff ici en tl y all eg e the elem en t of sp ec ifi c inten t on the p art of t he De a l e r s . Fi n a l l y , t h e Cou r t f o u n d t h a t t h e d i s mi s s a l of C ou nts T w o thr ou gh F i ve w as p roper b ecause of the P l ai nti ffs’ fai l ur e t o adequ a t el yal l ege the agr eementel ementof the Sect i on 1 and Sect i on 2 cl ai m s as s er t ed i n t hos e count s . T he Pl ai nt i ffs di s pu te near l yal l of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s concl us i ons . G i ven 5 t hese ov erl app i ng al t erna tiv e ho l dings, w e fi nd i tm ost expedi ti o u s to be gi n w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ng as t o t he agr eementel ement of C ount s T w o t hr ough Fi ve, and then move on t o t he otherpor t i ons of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng. 6th e se p ro c e e d in g s th a t D e n tsp lyc o e rc e d th e D e a ler s in to par t i ci pat ing i n i t s ant i compet i t i ve pr act i ces . T he doctr i ne of jud ici al estop p el “b ar[ s] a p artyfro m takin g co n tra d ict o ry pos i t i ons dur i ng t he cour s e of l i t i gat i on. ” G

- I H oldi ngs , I

nc. v. R el i ance I

ns . C o. , 586 F. 3d 2 4 7, 261 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)

. O ne of the thr es hol d r equi r ement s forj udi ci al est op pel i s a fi nd i ng of bad fai t h on the partof the part yagainst w h o m th e d o c tr in e is in v o k e d

. C hao v. R oy’s C ons tr . , I nc. , 517 F

. 3 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 6 n . 5 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 8 )

. T h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y vel non of ju d ic ia l e s t o p p e l is f

a c t- s p e c if

ic

. McN em arv. D is ney Stor e, I nc. , 9 1 F .3 d 6 1 0 , 6 1 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 6 ). H e re , alth o u g h D e n tsp ly inv o k ed the d o ctri n e b ef o re the D istri ct C o u rt , the D istri ct C o u rt m ade no ment i on of i t , and w e or di nar i l ydo notcons i deri s s ues n o t a d d re s s e d b y th e d is tr ic t c o u rt in th e f ir s t in s ta n c e . See , e. g. , I n r e Mont

gom er y W ar d & Co. , 4 2 8 F

. 3 d 1 5 4 , 1 6 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 )

. We s e e n o r e a s o n t o d e p a r tf r o m th a tr u l e h e r e , a s we cannotdeci de, bas ed on t hi s r ecor d and w i t h no fi ndi ngs byt he D i s t r i ctC o u rt , w hethert he Pl ai nt i ffs have e xhi bi t ed bad f ai t h. C f. R el i an ce Ins. , 428 F. 3d at166 & n. 25. 28 1. A l l e ga t i on o f

an a gr e e m e nt Th e Di s t r i c tCo u r tf

o u n d t h e d i s mi s s a l o f

Co u n t s T wo t hr ough Fi ve w arr ant ed i n par tbas ed on i t s concl us i on t hatt he Pl ai nt i ffs di d notadequa t el yal l ege a n agreem entamong D e n tsp lya n d th e D e a ler s. T h e P lain tiff s s e e k to re v iv e th e ir cons pi r acycl ai m s es s ent i al l ybyr efe r ence t o t hei ral l eg ati ons t hat“eve r yD eal eragr eed t o t he s ame pl an – D eal erC r i t er i on 6”; t hat“eve r yD eal erknew t hateveryot herD eal erag ree d, or w o u ld a g re e , to th is s a m e p lan ” ; a n d th a t “ it .

. . w a s o b v io u s toT h e stan d ard fo r a S ec ti o n 2 v iolati o n is “t h e m o re 7 s t r i ngentm onopol ys t andar d[, ] ” E as tm an Kodak C o . v. I m age T ec h n ic alSer vs . , I

nc. , 5 0 4 U .S . 4 5 1 , 4 8 1 (1 9 9 2 ), b u t o n ly inso fa r as the p rac ti ce s co n sti tuti n g the a lle g ed v iolati o n are c o n c e rn e d , n o t th e e x iste n c e o f a n a g re e m e n t. 29 eac h D eal ert hat– onl y if all of the otherD eal er s compl i ed – w o u ld th e p u rp o s e o f D e a le r C ri te r i o n 6 b e a c h ie v e d .” (A p p e lla n ts ’ B r. 6 8 -6 9 .) S ect i on 1 clai m s ar e l i m i t ed to com binat i on s, con t ract s, and cons pi r aci es , and thus al w ay s r equi r e the exi s t ence of an a g re e m e n t. See I

n r e I ns . B r oker age Ant i tr us tLi t ig. , 5 7 9 F. 3d 24 1 , 2 6 7 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 9 )

. Se c t i o n 2 c l a i ms , i n c o n t r a s t , d o not r equi r e an a gr eementexce ptw her e, as her e, t he s peci fi c cha r ge i s c o n s p ir a c yto m o n o p o liz e . S e e Cop p e r we ld Cor

p . v. I ndepende nce Tube Corp. , 4 6 7 U

. S

. 7 5 2 , 7 6 7 n .1 3 (1 9 8 4 ). T her efor e, t he vi abi l i t yof the Pl ai nt i ffs ’ Sect i on 1 and Sect i on 2 cl ai m s in C ount s T w o t hr ough Fi ve tur ns on w hethert he P lain tiff s h ave ad equ at el yal l eged an a g re e m e n t am o n g D e n tsp ly a n d th e D e a le rs . See E ng l ert v. C i t y of M cKeesport , 872 F. 2d 1 1 4 4 , 1 1 5 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 9 ); Fr agal e & Sons B eve r age C o. v. D ill , 760 F. 2d 469, 473- 7 4 (3d C i r . 1985)

. T o al l ege s uch an 7 agr eementbetw een tw o orm or e per s ons orent i t i es , a pl ai nt i ff m u st al lege fa cts p la u s ib lysu g g esti n g “a u n ityo f p u rpo se o r a comm on des i gn and under s t andi ng, ora meet i ng of m i nds i n an unl aw ful arr ang em en t
. ” C o p p e rw e ld , 467 U

. S. at771 (q u o tatio n o m itt e d ); see al so , e. g. , Sunkis tG r ow ers , I nc. v. W i nckl er& Sm i th C i tr us P r ods

. C o. , 3 7 0 U

. S

. 1 9 , 2 9 -30 (19 6 2 ).30 T he amended compl ai nti n t hi s cas e al l eges a tw o- t i er ed c o n sp ira c y . F irst, ita lleg e s th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts c o n sp ire d to “mai nt ai n D ent s pl y ’ s m onopol y of t he m anufa ctur e of art i fi ci al t eeth an d / orpr emi um ar t i fi ci al t eeth fors al e i n t he U ni t ed St at es , t o r es t r ai n t r ade f ort he s al e of a r t i fi ci al t eeth and/ or pr emi um ar t i fi ci al t eet h i n t he U ni t ed St at es byt he im p lem e n tatio n o f

a n e x c lu s iv e d e a lin g a rra n g e m e n t, an d to e x c lu d e D e n tsp ly ’s c o m p e tit o rs f ro m th e m a rk e ts f

o r su c h tee th i n t he U ni t ed St at es [. ] ” ( A pp. 435. ) Second, i tal l eges t hatt he defe ndant s cons pi r ed “t o s el l s uch t eeth t o dent al l abor at or i es at ant i compet i t i ve pr i ces det erm i ned byD ent s pl yand agr eed t o by t he D ealer D ef

endant s . ” (I

d. ) T o c a r r y o u tt h i s c o n s p i r a c y, D ent s pl yal l egedl yhas s ol d t eeth t o t he D eal er s on t he condi t i on “that[the D eal er s ] r es t r i ctt hei rdeal i ngs w i t h r i val m anufa ctur er s [. ] ” (I

d. at452. ) T he D eal er s , t he Pl ai nt i ffs al l ege, “knew t hatt hi s excl us ive dea l i ng arr angementw as and is an ille g a l r estraint of tr ad e d esig n ed to m aintain D en tsply ’s m onopol y . ” (I

d. a t 4 4 0 .) I n ourr evi ew of the am ended com pl ai nt , w e under s t and t he Pl ai nt i ffs t o al l ege a hybr i d of both ver t i cal and hor i zont al c o n s p ir a c ie s . ( See , e. g. , i d. a t 4 3 5 (“ D e f e n d a n ts , e a c h w ith a ll of the o thers , h av e e n tered into tw o interrelat ed co n sp ir ac ies[.]” ( emphasi s added)

. ) T hats or tof conspi r acy , s om et i m es dubbed a “ h u b -a n d -s p o k e ” c o n s p ir a c y , s ee , e. g. , I m pr o P r ods

. , I

n c. v. Her r i ck , 7 1 5 F

. 2 d 1 2 6 7 , 1 2 7 9 (8th C ir

. 1 9 8 3 ), h as a lon g h ist o ry in a n titr u s t ju ri s p ru d e n c e , s ee , e. g. , I nt ers t at e C i r cui t

, I nc. v. U ni t ed Stat es , 306 U

. S. 208 ( 1939)

. Such a cons pi r acy i nvol ves a hub, gener al l y t he domi nantpur chas er or suppli er i n the r el evan t m arket , and t he spo kes,31 m ade up o f the di s t r i but or s i nvol ved i n t he cons pi r acy . T h e ri m of the w heel i s t he connec t i ng agr eement s among t he hor i zont al com peti t ors ( dis t ri bu t ors) t hat form t he spo kes. T otalB enefi t

s P la nn i ngA gen cy, Inc. v. A nthem B l ue C ross & B lu e Sh ield , 55 2 F

. 3d 43 0, 43 5 n

. 3 (6t h C i r. 20 0 8 ); se e als o 2 P h illip E . A re e d a & H e rb e rt H o v e n k a m p , A nt i t r u s tLa w: An A nal ys is of A nt i tr us t P r i nci

pl es and Thei rAppl i cat i on , ¶ 1426, a t1 8 8 n . 1 1 ( 2 d e d

. 2 0 0 0 ) ; AB A S e c t i o n o f An t i t ru s tL a w, A n titru st L a w D e v e lo

p m e n ts 2 4 (6th ed

. 2 0 0 7 ). H e re , e v e n a ss u m in g th e P lain tiff s h a v e a d e q u a tely iden ti fied the h u b (D en tsply ) as w ell as th e sp o k es (the D ea lers), w e conc l ude t hat t he amended compl ai ntl acks anyal l egat i on of an agr eementamong t he D eal er s t hemsel ves . T he amended compl ai nts t at es onl yi n a conc l us or ym annert hatal l of the defe ndant s – D ent s pl yand al l t he D eal er s i ncl uded – cons pi r ed and knew aboutt he al l eged pl an t o m ai nt ai n D ent s pl y ’ s m arket pos i t i on. T he a m ended com pl ai ntal l eges , fori ns t ance , t hat “D ent s pl ym ade c leart o eac h .

. . deal ert hateveryot her D ent s pl ydeal erw as . . . r equi r ed t o agr ee t o t he s ame excl us i ve deal i ng arr angement , and thateveryot herD ent s pl ydeal erhad so ag ree d

. ” (A p p . 4 4 2

. ) It era ti o n s o f th is al lega ti o n are s p ri n k le d th ro u g h o u t th e a m e n d e d c o m p la in t. ( E

. g. , i d. at443, 451, 454, 456, 458- 59. ) B utto survi ve di s m i s s al i tdoes not su ff ice to sim p lysaythat the de fe n d an ts h ad k n o w ledg e; th ere m u s t b e f

a c t u a l a lle g a tio n s to p la u s ib ly su g g e s t a s m u c h

. See T w o m b ly , 55 0 U

. S

. at56 4. T here are none here. In ot her w ords, th e “ ri m ” c o n n e c tin g th e v a ri o u s “ s p o k e s ” is m is s in g . C f. Tot al32 B enef i t s P l anni ng , 5 5 2 F .3 d a t 4 3 6 ; T o y s “R” Us , I

n c . v . F. T

. C. , 2 2 1 F

. 3 d 9 2 8 , 9 3 4 -36 (7th C ir

. 2 0 0 0 ). In ste a d o f

u n d e rsc o rin g f

a c tu a l alle g a tio n s p lau sib ly s ugges t i ng t he exi s t ence of an a gr eement , t he Pl ai nt i ffs i nvi t e us t o i nfer t hatthe D eal er s w er e aw ar e of e ach other ’ s i nvol vement i n t he cons pi r acybeca us e, as m arketpar t i ci pant s , t heyal l knew th a t D e n tsp lyw a s th e d o m in a n t p layer in th e a rtific ial to o th m a rk e t an d b e c a u se th e ya ll h a d a n e c o n o m ic in c e n tiv e to c re a te and mai nt ai n a r egi m e i n w h ich D ent s pl yr ei gned and the D eal er s di d i t s bi ddi ng. I n t hatr egi m e, t he Pl ai nt i ffs t el l us , t he D eal er s w oul d al l benef i t fr om D ent s pl y ’ s pol i ci es beca us e they w o u ld a ll b e a b le t o c h a rg e d e n tal la b o ra to rie s a rtific ially i nfl at ed p ri ces fort eeth i n t hei rvar i ous r egi ons of oper at i on. W e d o n o t d isre g a rd th e lo g ica l ap p e a l o f th is a rg u m e n t. C e rta in ly , the o b

jec tiv e o f

m a n y a n ti tru st c o n sp ira c ies is to c o n tro l p ric in g w ith a n e ye to in c re a sin g p ro f its. B u t sim p ly b e c a u se e a c h D e a ler , o n its o w n , m ig h t h a v e b e e n e c o n o m ica lly m ot i vat ed t o exerteff or t s t o keep D ent s pl y ’ s bus i n ess and charge the el evated pri ces D ents plyi m po sed do es not gi ve ri se to a p laus ible inf

ere n ce o f a n ag ree m en t am o n g the D ea lers th e m s e l v e s . C

f. T w o m b ly , 550 U

. S. at566 ( not i ng t he “l ogi c” o f th e c o m p lain t’s a lleg a tio n o f a n a g r e e m e n t b u t f

in d in g it insu ff ici en t bec au s e it did n o t sug g est ac tual joint action ). N ot w i t hs t andi ng T

w o m b ly ’s requi rem ent that an anti t rust pl ai nt i ff s t at e “e nough fac t t o r ai s e a r eas onabl e expe ct at i on t hat di s covery w i l l r evea l evi dence of i l l egal agr eement [, ] ” i d. at556 ( footnot e omi t t ed) , t he Pl ai nt i ffs ’ al l egat i ons do not offe reven a gos s amer i nfer ence of any degr ee of coor di nat i on among t he D ea l e r s . Th o s e a l l e g a t i o n s a r e n o t “ p l a c e d i n a c o n t ext t hat r ai s es a s ugges t i o n of a pr ece di ng agr eement ” among t heT he Pl ai nt i ffs r el yon F in e m a n v . A r m str o n gW o rld 8 I ndus tr i es , I

nc. , 980 F. 2d 171 ( 3d C i r . 1992) , w her e the di s t r i ct cour tdi r ect ed a ve r di ctfort he def endanton a Sect ion 1 cons pi r acycl ai m , fi ndi ng insu ffi ci entevi dence t hatt he d ef en d a n t distri b u tors sh are d the d ef en d an t m an u fa cture r’s purpos e of e l i m i nat i ng t he pl ai nt i ff’ s bus i nes s and r ej ect i ng F in e m a n ’s a rg u m e n t th a t “ [ S ]e c tio n 1 c o -c o n sp ira to rs a re h e ld l i able for theirj ointcom m i t m ent t o an un l aw ful purpose w h ethe r or n o t th eir m o ti v es f o r m ak ing that co m m itm en t are d i f f e r e n t
. ” I d. at 21 2

. W e d isag ree d w ith the d istri ct co u rt ’s “novel appr oach[ , ] ” i d. , an d h e ld th a t “a lth o u g h v e r ti c a lly al i gned co- cons pi r at or s m us t s har e a comm i t m ent t o a comm on s cheme w hi ch has an ant i compet i t i ve obj ect i ve, t heyneed not sh a re a n id e n tica l m o tiv e f o r e n g a g in g in c o n c e rte d a c tio n in vi ol at i on of [S] ect i on 1 of the Sher m an A ct [, ] ” i d. at 21 5

. In a d d iti o n to th e f

a c t th a t F i nem an re a c h e d u s in a n e n tirely di ffe r ent pr ocedur al pos tur e, not hi ng i n t hatcas e exc us es t he Pl ai nt i ffs fr om al l egi ng an agr eementbetw een D ent s pl yand the D e a l e r s . A t m o s t, F i nem an coul d pr ovi de a de fens e fort he P l ai nti ffs i f D ents plya rg u e d t hat no ag reem ent coul d ex i st b ec au se it s m o ti v es w ere u n ali g n ed w ith the D ea lers’. 33 D e a l e r s . I

d. a t 5 5 7 . In ste a d , the yd o n o m o re th a n in tim a te “mer el ypar al l el conductt hatcoul d j us tas w el l be i ndepende nt act i on. ” I

d. A s a co n seq u en ce , the P lai n ti ff s h av e f all en sh o rt of thei r pl eading o bli gati on s. 8
B efor e both t he D i s t r i ctC our tand us , t he Pl ai nt i ffs have t r i ed t o hedge t hei r bet s . T hey ar gue thateven i f theyhave not adequa t el yal l eged a n over ar chi ng cons pi r acybetw een a nd34 among D ent s pl y and al l of i t s D eal er s , t hey at l eas t have adequa t el yal l eged s ever al bi l at er al, ver t i cal cons pi r aci es b e t we e n De n t s p l ya n d t he D e a l e r s . Th e r e i s a r g u a b l ys o me s u p p o rt f

o r w h a t a m o u n ts to a “ r i m l e s s ” c o n s p ir a c y . See Kot t eakos v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 3 2 8 U .S . 7 5 0 , 7 5 5 (1 9 4 6 ); D i cks on v. Mi cr os of

tC or p. , 3 0 9 F

. 3 d 1 9 3 , 2 0 3 (4th C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ). H ow ever , w e nee d notw ei gh i n on t he al t ernat i ve theoryt he Pl ai nt i ffs now pr es s , for even as s um i ng i t i s l egal l y vi abl e or even r el evanther e, t he Pl ai nt i ffs cannotpur s ue i t u ndert he ci r cumst ance s o f thi s cas e bec aus e the amended compl ai nt cannotbe fa i r l yunder s t ood t o al l ege the exi s t ence of s ever al u n c o n n e c ted , b ilate ra l, ve rtica l co n sp ira c ies b e tw e e n D e n tsp ly and ea ch D eal er . W hi l e pl eadi ng i n t he al t ernat i ve i s , of cour s e, a u th o ri z e d b y th e F e d e ra l R u le s o f C iv il P ro c e d u re , s ee F e d

. R. C iv . P . 8 (a )(3 ); s ee als o Langerv. Monar ch Li f e I ns . C o. , 966 F. 2d 78 6 , 8 0 2 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 2 ) , we h a v e a n o b l i g a t i o n t o r ead a lle g a tio n s n o t in is o la tio n b u t a s a w h o le a n d in c o n te x t, s ee C habalv. R eagan , 8 2 2 F .2 d 3 4 9 , 3 5 7 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 7 ); P a c e R e s ., I nc. v. S h rew s bur

y Tw p. , 8 0 8 F

. 2 d 1 0 2 3 , 1 0 2 6 (3d C ir

. 1 9 8 7 ). A s w e r ead the amended compl ai nt , w e s ee no i ndi cat i on of the Pl ai nt i ffs ’ i nt ent i on t o al l ege thateverys i ngl e agr eement betw een D ents plyand each D eal er had an t i com peti t i ve ef fect s. A l l t hr oughoutt he amended compl ai nt ar e s ubs t ant i al l ys i m i l ar var i at i ons on t he al l egat i on t hat t he “D efe ndant s have ag ree d, each w i th a l lof the o thers , t o i m pl ementan exc l us i ve deal i ng arr angement [. ] ” ( A p p . 439 ( emphasi s added)

. ) I ndeed, t he amended com p lai nti s r i fe w i t h addi t i onal r efe r ence s t o “the c o n s p ir a c y ” b e tw e e n “ [ t] h e D e f e n d a n ts , . . . each wi th al lof the others [. ] ” (E

. g. , i d. at4 4 6 , 45 1 (em ph asi s added ). ) Th ese a lleg a tio n s a re ju st n o t th e stu f f o f se v e ra l m in i-a g r e e m e n ts lac k in g a h o riz o n tal te th e r. In o th e r w o rd s, th e P lain tiff s s im p lyT h e P lain tiff s a rg u e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rro n e o u sly 9 a p p lied a h e ig h ten e d p lea d in g sta n d a rd b yre q u irin g th e m to a lleg e n o t o n lyth a t th e D e a ler s k n e w th a t D e n tsp lyw o u ld achi eve a m onopol i s t i c pos i t i on but , addi t i onal ly , t hatt hey 35 d id n o t d ra f

t th e ir a m e n d e d c o m p lain t to e n c o m p a ss th e ir al t ernat i ve l egal t heory . I n s hor t , t he Pl ai nt i ffs ar e bound byt he f o u r c o rn e rs o f th e ir a m e n d e d c o m p lain t, w h ich c lea rlyse e k s to al l ege o ne co nspir acyt o w hich D ents ply and al l of the D eal ers , as a co lle c ti v e, w ere p arti es. T o the e x tent the P lai n ti ff s are re c a stin g th e ir a lleg a tio n s in a n e f f o rt to c irc u m v e n t a m o tio n to d is m is s , w e m u s t r e

je c t th a t a p p ro a c h

. See Leegi n C r eat i ve LeatherP r ods

. v. P SK

S, I nc. , 5 5 1 U .S . 8 7 7 , 9 0 7 -0 8 (2 0 0 7 ); In r e N ew Mot orV

ehi cl es C anadi an E

xp. A nt i tr us tLi t ig. , 533 F. 3d 1 , 5 (1st C ir

. 2 0 0 8 ). T h e P lain tiff

s h a v e f a iled to a lleg e a n y f

a c ts p lau sib ly s ugges t i ng a uni t yof purpos e, a comm on des i gn and under s t andi ng, ora meet i ng of the mi nds betw een and am ong D ent s pl yand al l of the D eal er s . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m t he D is tr ict C o u rt’s d e ter m in a tio n th a t th e P lain tiff s h a v e f a iled to adequa t el yal l ege the agr eementel ementof t hei r Sect i on 1 and S ect i on 2 clai m s. 2. A l l e ga t i on o f

Spe c i f i c I nt e nt T h e D istric t C o u rt d ism iss e d th e c o n s p ir a c yto m onopol i ze c l ai m s as s er t ed i n C ount s T w o and Thre e on the al t ernat i ve gr ound t hatt he Pl ai nt i ffs fai l ed t o adequa t el yal l ege s peci fi c i nt enton t he part of t he D eal er s . Speci fi c i nt enti s an 9“w ant ed” D ent s pl yt o obt ai n a monopol y , t her eby“conf us [i ng] m ot i ve w i t h i nt ent
. ” ( A ppel l ant s ’ B r . 81- 83. ) W e agr ee thatno a u th o rityo f

w h ich w e a re a w a re m a n d a tes th e c o n c lu sio n th a t a defe ndant ’ s i nt entt o vi ol at e the ant i t rus tl aw s i s negat ed i f the d e f e n d a n t w a s c o e rc e d in to c o m m itt in g a v io latio n . It i s w e ll set t l ed thatat t he sum m ary j ud gm ent st age a c ou rtm aydis po se o f a n a n titru st c o n sp ira c yc laim in “ th e a b se n c e o f a n yp lau sib le m ot i ve t o engage in t he conduc tchar ged[. ] ” M at s us hi t a E l ec. I ndus

. C o. v. Zeni th R adi o C or p. , 4 7 5 U

. S

. 5 7 4 , 5 9 6 ( 1 9 8 6 )

. We r ecogni ze t h at s o m e co u rt s h av e m ade m ot i ve- t ype d e te rm in a tio n s in a n titr u s t c a s e s a t th e p le a d in g s ta g e . See , e. g. , TV C om m c’ ns N

etw ork, I nc. v. Turne rN

etw ork Tel evis i on, I

nc. , 96 4 F

. 2d 10 22 , 10 26 -27 (10t h C i r. 19 92 ). O t her cou rt s, h o w e v e r, h a v e d is a v o w e d th a t a p p ro a c h

. See , e. g. , Ju n gv. A ss’n of A m . Med. C ol l eges , 3 0 0 F

. S u p p . 2 d 1 1 9 , 1 5 9 (D

. D

. C

. 2 0 0 4 ). W e n e e d n o t d e c id e h e re w h ich lin e o f c a se s h a s it rig h t. 36 e s s e n t i a l e l e me n tof a c o n s p i r a c yt o mo n o p o l i z e c l a i m. B o n jorno v

. Kais erA l um i num & Chem

. C or p. , 7 5 2 F. 2 d 8 0 2, 807 ( 3d C i r . 1984)

. I tm eans “an i nt ent w hi ch goes be y ond t he m er e i nt entt o do t he ac t
. ” A s pen Ski i ng C o. v. A s

pen Highl ands Ski i ng C or

p. , 4 7 2 U .S . 5 8 5 , 6 0 2 (1 9 8 5 ) (d isc u ss in g sp e c if ic i nt enti n t he att empt to m onopol i ze c ont ext ) ( quot i ng U ni t ed S t a t e s v . A l u m i n u m C o . o f A m. , 1 4 8 F

. 2 d 4 1 6 , 4 3 2 (2d C ir

. 1 9 4 5 )). In o th e r w o rd s, th e d e f e n d a n t m u st h a v e “ in ten d e d to a c h i e v e a n i l l e g a l mo n o p o l y . ” J o s e p h P

. Ba u e r & W i l l i a m H

. P ag e, II K i ntner ’s Feder al A nt i tr us tLaw § 14. 40, at 423 ( 2002) (f o o tn o te o m itt e d ); s ee al

s o Ti m es - P i cayune P ub. C o. v. U ni t ed St at es , 3 4 5 U .S . 5 9 4 , 6 2 6 (1 9 5 3 ); A m . Tobacco C o. , 328 U

. S. at 809. Spe cific i nt enti n t he ant i t rus tcont extm aybe i nferr edA s t he Pl ai nt i ffs corr ect l ynot e, t he agr eementel ement 10 o f th e ir c o n sp ira c yc laim s a rg u a b lyis n o t n e g a ted b yth e ir a lleg a tio n th a t th e D e a le r s m a yh a v e b e e n c o e rc e d in to s u b m i t t in g to D e n ts p ly’s p ri c in g p o lic ie s . See P e rm a L ife Muf f l ers , I nc. v. Int’l P a r t

s C or p. , 3 9 2 U

. S

. 1 3 4 , 1 4 2 (19 6 8 ); A l br echt v. Her ald C o. , 390 U

. S. 145, 150 & n. 6 ( 1968)

. B ut

37 f ro m a d e f

e n d a n t’ s u n la w f

u l c o n d u c t. See , e. g. , A dvo, I nc. v. P hi l a. N ew s papers , I nc. , 5 1 F

. 3 d 1 1 9 1 , 1 1 9 9 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 5 ). H er e, t he Pl ai nt i ffs poi ntus t o t hei ral l egat i ons t hatt he d e f e n d a n ts “ h a v e a c ted w ith th e sp e c if ic in ten t to u n law f

u lly m ai nt ai n a monopol y [, ] ” ( A pp. 452) ; t hat“the i nt ended e ffe ctof t h[e] excl us i ve deal i ng arr angement
. . . has been the el i m i nat i on of anyand al l compet i t i on[, ] ” ( i d. at 4 4 0) ; and thatt he defe ndant s “knew t hatt hi s excl us i ve dea l i ng arr angementw as a n d is a n ill e g a l re stra in t o f tra d e d e sig n e d to m a in tain D ent s pl y ’ s m onopol y [, ] ” ( i d. )

. I n es s ence , t he Pl ai nt i ffs al l ege that D e n tply ’s pricing p o li cies w ere u n law fu l, that the D ea lers knew as m uch, and t hat t hey s i gned on t o t hos e pol i ci es know i ng ful l w el l theyw er e unl aw ful

. B utt hatal l egat i on, i n i t s m any i t er at i ons , i s concl us or y . T her e ar e no fac t s behi nd i t , s o i tdoes notpl aus i bl ys ugges tknow l edge of unl aw ful nes s on t he D e a ler s’ p a rt. W e c o u ld f e a sib lyin f

e r th e D e a ler s’ s p e c if

ic i nt entt o fur t herD ent s pl y ’ s m onopol i s ti c am bi t i ons i f the P l a i n t i f f s h a d s t a t e d e n o u g h fa c tu a l ma t t e rt o s u g g e s ts o me coor di nat i on among t he D eal er s , s om ethi ng t o s ugges tt hatt hey k n e w th a t D e n tsp lyw a s s p e a rh e a d in g a n e f f o rt to s q u a sh its compet i t or s bypr es s i ng t he D eal er s i nt o i t s s ervi ce a nd keepi ng pr i ces ar t i fi ci al l yi nfl at ed. W e have alr eadydet erm i ned, 10t hatar gum entdoes notr el i eve the Pl ai nt i ffs of thei robl i gat i on to sta te “ su f

f icie n t f a c tu a l m a tt e r . . . [ th a t] ‘sta te[ s] a c laim to r el i ef that is p laus i bl e on i t s fac e’ ” as t o t he s peci fi c i nt ent e le m e n t o f

th e irS e c tio n 2 c la im s . I qbal , 129 S. C t
. at1 949 ( quot i ng T

w o m b ly , 5 5 0 U

. S

. at 57 0 ).

38 h o w ev er, th a t the P lai n ti ff s’ all eg ati o n s tha t th e D ea lers cons pi r ed w i t h D ent s pl yar e def i ci ent , s o w e ca nnoti nfert he D eal er s ’ s peci fic int entfr om t hei rm er e part i ci pat i on i n t he cons pi r acy , as t he Pl ai nt i ffs ur ge. I n fac t , t he onl yactual c o n d u c t th e P lain tiff

s h a v e a lleg e d o n th e p a rt o f th e D e a ler s is t hateac h one of them, ac ti n g on i t s ow n, s i gned a bi l at er al deal i ng agr eementw i t h D ent s pl y . T he onl ypl aus i bl e i nfer ence from t hat cond uct i s that each D eal er s ou gh tt o acq uir e, ret a in and / or i ncrease i t s ow n b usi ness. S i gn i fi cantl y , t he an t i t rust la w s d o n o t p ro h ib it s u c h c o n d u c t. See , e. g. , U

. S. St eel C or p. v. For tnerE nt ers . , I

nc. , 4 2 9 U. S

. 6 1 0 , 6 1 2 n . 1 ( 1 9 7 7 )

. Atb o t t o m, t he Pl ai nt i ffs ’ al l egat i ons of s peci fi c i nt entr es tnoton fac t s but on concl us or ys t at ement s s t rung t ogether w i t h ant i t rus tj ar gon. Iti s an axiom of an t i t rustl aw , ho w ever, t hat m erel ysay i ng so d o e s n o t m a k e it s o f

o r p le a d in g -s u f

f ic ie n c yp u r p o s e s . See T w o m b ly , 550 U

. S. at 555 ( “[A ] pl ai nt i ff’ s obl i gat i on t o pr ovi de th e g ro u n d s o f

h is e n tit lem e n t to re lief re q u ire s m o re th a n lab e ls and conc l us i ons , and a f or m ul ai c r eci t at i on of the el ement s of a c a us e of a c t i on w i l l no t do [. ] ” ( i nt e r na l qu ot a t i on m arks, alt era ti o n an d cit ati o n o m itted)). B e c a u se w e f

in d th a t th e P lai n tiff

s f a iled to su f

f icie n tly all eg e sp ec ifi c inten t, w e a g ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rt ’s di s m i s s al of C ount s T w o and Thre e on thi s gr ound.39 3 . A p p li ca ti o n o f I l linois B r i ck I n addi ti o n to f

i ndi ng t hatt he Pl ai nt i ffs di d not adequa t el y al l ege s peci fi c i nt ent or an agr eement , the D i s t r i ct C o u rt d ism issed C o u n ts T w o an d F o u r un d er I l l i nois B r i ck

. T he C o u rt r e c o g n ize d th a t Hess I di d notaddr es s w hethert he P lai n ti ff s co u ld p u rsu e d am ag es c lai m s ag ains t th e D ea lers beca u se the D eal er s w er e notpar t i es t o t hats ui t
. T he D i s t r i ct C o u rt c o n c lu d e d , h o w e v e r, th a t I l l i nois B r i ck ’ s gener al cocons pi r at ore x c e p t i on di d notappl yher e bec aus e the Pl ai nt i ffs di d notal lege fa ct s t o s how t hatt he D eal er s w er e i n fac t c o c o n s p i r a t o r s w i t h D e n t s p l y. T he Pl ai nt i ffs faul tt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s cons i der at i on of anyexce pt i on atal l t o I l l i nois B r i ck

. I n t h e P l a i n t i f f s ’ v i e w, I l l i nois B r i ck i s i n a p p o s i t e b e c a u s e t h e y b u y d i r e c t l y , not i n d ir ec tl y , fro m the D ea lers. B u t th at circu m stan ce is i m m at er i al beca us e the amended compl ai nt does notadequa t el yal l ege that t h e De a l e r s a r e me mb e r s o f a c o n s p i r a c y wi t h De n t s p l y . As we expl ai ned i n Hess I

, t he Pl ai nt i ffs c o u l d come w i t hi n Illino is B r i ck ’s co co n sp ir ator e x ce p ti o n o n lyif t h e D ea lers w ere p re c lu d e d f

ro m a ss e rtin g c laim s a g a in st D e n tsp lyb e c a u se th e ir p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e c o n s p i r a c ywas “ t ru l yc o mpl et e. ” Hess I , 424 F. 3d at383. A s w e have al r eadyconcl uded, how ever , t he amended compl ai ntdoes n o t g i ve r i s e t o a pl aus i bl e i nfer ence th a t th e D e a ler s’ in v o lv e m e n t in th e c o n sp ira c yw a s tru ly com plet e. T herefore, t o st at e a viabl e cl ai m againstt he D eal ers , t he Pl ai nt i ffs m us t come w i t hi n t he cocons pi r at or exce pt i on – or s o me o t h e re x c e p t i o n – t o Il li n o is B r i ck

. B eca us e theyhave f a i l e d t o d o s o , t h e P l a i n t i f f s i n e s s e n c e a r e a s s e r t i n g t h e i rc l a i ms agai ns tt he D eal er s as m er e mi ddl emen. T h is the ycannotdo.40 See , e. g. , Kans as v. Uti li C o rp U ni t ed I nc. , 497 U

. S. 199, 204, 2 0 7 (1 9 9 0 ); Kendal lv. V is a U

. S. A

. , I nc. , 518 F. 3d 1042, 1 0 4 4 -5 0 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ); McC ar thy , 80 F. 3d at855. T he Pl ai nt i ffs al s o ar gue t hat , even as s um i ng t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s appl i cat i on of I l l i nois B r i ck

w a s c o rre c t as to th e ir r eques tforover char ge damages , the C our tm ade no f i ndi ng as t o t hei r re q u est forl os tpr ofi t s . I n Hess I , w e expl ai ned that “[w ] hen ant i trus tvi ol at or s caus e pr i ces t o i ncre ase t hr ough m o n o p o li za ti o n , a p ri ce -fixing co n sp ir ac y , o r ex clus ion ary c o n d u c t, th e h a rm th e yc a u se m e m b e rs o f th e d istrib u tio n c h a in c o m e s in tw o f

o r m s : ( 1 ) o v e rc h a rg e s p a id f o r g o o d s a c tu a lly pu rchased; and (2) l ost p rof i t s r esul t i ng from t he lost oppor tuni t yto buyand r es el l a gr eat ervol um e of goods

. ” 424 F. 3d at373 ( footnot e and c i t at i ons om i t t ed)

. A ft ercanva s s i ng var i ous s our ces on t he s ubj ect , w e hel d t hatt he Pl ai nt i ffs di d not have s t andi ng t o r ecove rl os tpr ofi t s fr om D ent sp ly

. O ur r at i onal e forbarr i ng l os tprof i t s damages w as bas ed most l yon th e P la in tif

f s ’ s ta tu s a s in d ir e c t p u rc h a s e rs v is -à -v is D e n ts p l y. See i d. at 3 7 5

. W e also ex p lai n ed that lost pro fit s d am ag es a re w i del y“di s favor ed” a nd ci t ed appr ovi ngl yfr om a l aw j our nal ar t i cl e byJ udge East erbr ook i n w hi ch he ar gued thatover char ge damages , as o p p os ed t o l os tpr ofi t s damages , “s houl d be the b a s i s o f a l l [ a n t i t ru s t ] d a ma g e s . ” I d. ( q u o t i n g F r a n k H. E a s te rb ro o k , T

re b le W h a t? , 55 A nt i trus tL

. J

. 95, 101 ( 1 9 8 6 )) ( quot at i on m arks om i t t ed and a l t er at i on i n or i gi nal )

. T he Pl ai nt i ffs acknow l edge thatpor t i on of our hol di ng butas s er tt hat w e h a v e “ n o t h a d a n yo c c a sio n to ru le o n w h e th e r lo st p ro f its d am ag es m ay b e re co v ere d fro m the D ea lers. ” (A p p ell an ts’ B r. 5 9 .)T he Pl ai nt i ffs cont end thatt he def endant s can n ot 11 compl ai n t hatt heyw er e ca ughtunaw ar es byt hei rr eques tfor l os tpr ofi t s damages

. T hat m ay be s o, but t he doctr i ne of w ai ver d o es n o t serve as a su rprise-av o id a n c e m ec h an ism alon e. It 41 A l t hough Hess I

adm i t t edly did n ot cat ego ri cal l ybar l ost pr ofi t s damages i n t hi s ci r cui t , w e nee d notexplore t hi s i s s ue anyfur t heri n t hi s cas e. I n t hi s C our t , i s s ues t hatar e not “sp ec ifi ca ll yp rese n te d to the D istri ct C o u rt ” o rdin aril yare w a i v e d o n a p p e a l, see P ensi on B enefi tG ua r. C orp. v. W hit e C ons ol

. I ndus

. , I nc. , 215 F. 3d 407, 418- 19 & n. 14 ( 3d C i r . 2000) (c o llec tin g c a se s); see al so I n r e I ns . B r oker age Ant i tr us tLi t ig. , 5 7 9 F .3 d a t 2 6 2 ; B a g o t v. A sh c ro ft , 3 9 8 F

. 3 d 2 5 2 , 2 5 6 (3d C ir

. 2005) , and ther e i s no evi dence i n t he re cor d t hat t he Pl ai nt i ffs s pe c i f i c a l l y l i t i g a t e d i n t h e Di s t r i c t Cou r t whe t h e r t h eym ay r e c o v e rl o s tp r o f

i t s d a ma g e s f

r o m t h e De a l e r s . I t i s t ru e t h a twe have the “di s cr et i onary pow er t o addr es s i s s ues t hathave be en w ai ved[, ] ” Bagot , 3 9 8 F

. 3 d a t2 5 6 ( c i t a t i o n s o mi t t e d ) , a n d we s om et i m es exer ci s e t hat pow er “w hen pr om pt ed byexce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s [, ] ” Sel ect ed R is ks I ns . C o. v. B r uno , 718 F. 2d 67, 69 ( 3d C i r . 1983) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed). B utno s uch ci r cumst ance s are at t endanther e. A s ubs t ant i al par tof Hess I w a s d e d ica ted to a n a n a ly sis o f w h e th e r th e P lain tiff

s c o u ld re c o u p lo s t p ro f

its d a m a g e s f

ro m D e n ts p ly. See 424 F. 3d at 3 7 3 -7 6 . W e c o n c lu d e d th a t th e yc o u ld n o t d o s o . I d. at 376. D esp it e h o w ce n tr al bo th tha t an aly sis an d that co n clus ion w ere t o Hess I

, the P lain tiff

s d id n o t le v e ra g e o u r d isc u ss io n to per s uade the D istr i ctC our ton r emand t o al l ow t hem t o s eek su c h d a m a g e s f

ro m th e D e a ler s, e lec tin g in ste a d to b ro a c h th is i ssue i n the D i stri ctC ou rti n o nlyt he b roade stt erm s. 11ens ur es t hata part i cul arissue is gi ven a f ul l ai r i ng, per m i t t i ng eac h par t y to p rese n ti t s vi ew s and the tr i al cour tt o m ake a n i ni t i al det er m i nat i on. M os ti m p o rt an tforourpurpos es , t he doctr i ne a ll o w s us t o r evi ew bot h t hos e vi ew s and that d e ter m in a tio n in a rriv in g a t o u r o w n c o n sid e re d ju d g m e n t. 42 A cc o rdin g ly , u n d er the se p arti cu lar circu m stan ce s w e a re c o n v in c e d th a t a w a iv e r f in d in g is a p p ro p ri a te
. See , e. g. , In re St one & W

ebs t er, I nc. , 5 5 8 F

. 3 d 2 3 4 , 2 4 1 n . 8 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ).

V I. For t he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w il l aff i r m t he D i s t r i ct C o u r t ’ s ru l i n g s i n t h e i re n t i r e t y.