Suture Express, Inc. v Owens & Minor Distribution, Inc.

Sutures appealed summary judgment to Owens and another defendant on its state and federal antitrust claims. The panel affirmed. The panel applied rule of reason analysis and noted it was an open question whether Suture needed to prove Owens and the other defendant had market power to prove the tying arrangement claim. However, the panel held that evidence that Owen and the other defendant lost market share over the relevant period and that pricing and profit margin for bundled deliveries of medical equipment went down demonstrated a lack of market power. It also affirmed the district court’s ding that Suture failed to demonstrate injury as overall revenues in the relevant medical surgical supply market went up and margins went down and thus there was no harm to competition whatever eth effects on suture. Thus, the federal claims under the Sherman and Clayton Acts failed. It affirmed as to the state claim as Suture failed to prove injury and thus failed to prove its claim. It finally sealed portions of the appendix that contained sensitive financial and other business records.