Opinion ID: 4542383
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Inline’s Antitrust Suit

Text: Shortly after Graphic initiated its patent-infringement lawsuit against Inline, Inline filed the instant antitrust suit against Graphic in July 2015. Inline alleged that Graphic monopolized the susceptor-packaging market using anticompetitive conduct in response to competition from Inline and other competitors. Inline asserted that Graphic’s conduct prevented it from competing in the susceptor-packaging market. Inline alleged that Graphic (1) possessed illegal monopoly power, in violation of federal and state antitrust laws, and (2) tortiously interfered with Inline’s prospective business and contractual relations.5 Specifically, Inline contended that Graphic fraudulently procured the asserted patents, made baseless litigation threats relating to the asserted patents, and used predatory-discount bundling in Graphic’s supply agreements with the CPG companies. Inline also claimed tortious interference because of “Graphic’s assertions to Nestlé that the Hot Pockets sleeve design was protected by the Asserted Patents.” Inline Packaging, 351 F. Supp. 3d at 1201. Following various motions and discovery, the parties moved for summary judgment in 2018. The district court granted Graphic’s motion, dismissing all of Inline’s claims. It simultaneously denied Inline’s motion for partial summary judgment. Inline subsequently filed this timely appeal. 5 In its complaint, Inline listed tortious interference with prospective business relations as Count I; tortious interference with existing contractual relations as Count II; illegal monopoly power, in violation of state law—Minn. Stat. § 325D.52—as Count IV; and illegal monopoly power, in violation of federal law—the Sherman Antitrust Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 2—as Count V. Inline’s claim for misappropriation of trade secrets (Count III) is not raised on appeal; therefore, we deem it waived. See Jenkins v. Winter, 540 F.3d 742, 751 (8th Cir. 2008). -7-