Opinion ID: 3037417
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: conclusion

Text: Mack presented sufficient evidence to allow a jury to consider its claim under § 1 of the Sherman Act. Accordingly, we will vacate the District Court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law and remand that claim for further proceedings. We will affirm the District Court’s disposition of Toledo’s RPA claim and Mack’s counterclaim for misappropriation of trade secrets. 18 In addition, we note that Toledo initially denied the existence of the contract it now uses to invoke the “gist of the action” doctrine. Toledo cannot properly change its position now. Tops Apparel Mfg. Co. v. Rothman, 244 A.2d 436, 439 n.8 (Pa. 1968) (“When a [party] alleges a fact in a court of justice, for [its] advantage, [it] shall not be allowed to contradict it afterwards.”) 53