925 F. Supp. 2d 170
D. Mass.2013Background
- ATC developed Automated Ball Indentation (ABI) for nondestructive tensile testing of metallic materials and sued Instron, Tinius Olsen, and MTS alleging a 15-year conspiracy to block ABI standards.
- Defendants allegedly used their positions on ASTM and ISO to discredit ABI and prevent ABI standardization, while promoting their own IIT technology.
- ATC alleged specific actors: Tobolski (Instron), Ruth (Tinius Olsen), Hay (MTS), with Low (NIST) and Nanstad (Oak Ridge) later clarified as not conspirators.
- Defendants allegedly blocked ABI through negative votes and by proposing changes to rename ABI to IIT, and by delaying ISO/ASTM actions between 1997 and 2011.
- ATC claimed a 70% US market share for mechanical testing equipment and that the market’s oligopolistic nature facilitated anti-ABI conduct.
- ATC asserted procedural irregularities at ASTM and ISO voting, including miscounted MTS votes and unilateral ballot items, as evidence of a conspiracy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ATC plausibly pleaded a §1 Sherman Act conspiracy | ATC asserts parallel votes and statements show a meeting of the minds. | ATC’s allegations show independent, self-interested actions, not agreement. | No plausible agreement; dismissal granted. |
| Whether Count II (Mass. 93A) survives as derivative of Count I | 93A claim mirrors antitrust conduct and should survive if Count I does. | No independent 93A violation beyond the failed antitrust claim. | Count II dismissed. |
| Whether Count III (commercial disparagement) can proceed against each defendant | Defendants allegedly made false statements about ABI and IIT. | Allegations against MTS and Tinius Olsen time-barred; limited against Instron pending law-foothold. | Dismissal for MTS and Tinius Olsen; Count III viable against Instron pending supplemental briefing on governing law. |
| Whether ATC should be allowed to amend counts I–III | Proposed SAC adds details that could cure pleading defects. | New allegations remain futile and fail to state plausible claims. | Amendment denied as futile for Counts I–II; Count III amendment allowed against Instron only after briefing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (S. Ct. 2007) (plaintiff must plead plausible facts showing agreement)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (50 S. Ct. 2009) (plausibility standard; legal conclusions not given presumptive truth)
- White v. R.M. Packer Co., 635 F.3d 571 (1st Cir. 2011) (market descriptions alone do not prove collusion)
- Burtch v. Milberg Factors, Inc., 662 F.3d 212 (3d Cir. 2011) (plus factors; market structure does not equal conspiratorial agreement)
- In re Travel Agent Comm’n Antitrust Litig., 583 F.3d 896 (6th Cir. 2009) (conspiracy plausibility and parallel conduct standards in antitrust)
- Anderson News, L.L.C. v. Am. Media, Inc., 680 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2012) (conspiracy pleading standards; role of parallel conduct)
- In re Delta/AirTran Baggage Fee Antitrust Litig., 733 F. Supp. 2d 1345 (N.D. Ga. 2010) (assessing conduct in pricing/competition contexts)
- TruePosition, Inc. v. LM Ericsson Tel. Co., 844 F. Supp. 2d 571 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (procedural irregularities at standard-setting bodies not implying conspiracy)
- Erie Cnty., Ohio v. Morton Salt, Inc., 702 F.3d 860 (6th Cir. 2012) (market structure and antitrust implications in multi-party settings)