390 F. Supp. 3d 892
E.D. Ill.2019Background
- Plaintiffs (International Congress of Oral Implantologists and U.S. Board of Implantology) allege defendants (Academy; American Board of Dental Specialties; American Board of Oral Implantology; and individual officers) conspired to block plaintiffs from obtaining recognition as an oral‑implantology specialty certifier and thereby preserved the defendant Board of Oral Implantology's monopoly.
- Plaintiffs submitted an application to the American Board of Dental Specialties (ABDS) in early 2018; ABDS returned the filing fee and said applications were suspended pending an application-form update; revised form imposed timing and procedural limits that delayed consideration. Plaintiffs contend the return was a constructive denial and anticompetitive.
- Plaintiffs allege defendants engaged in lobbying, litigation, public disparagement of plaintiffs’ credentials, used shared office space/overlapping leadership, and otherwise acted to maintain defendant board’s market position.
- Plaintiffs define two relevant markets: (1) certifying dentists as oral implantology specialists and (2) related professional services tied to such certifications (CME, journals, conferences). Plaintiffs allege U.S. geographic market and no reasonable substitutes.
- Procedurally: defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Court accepts factual allegations but requires plausibility under Iqbal/Twombly and analyzes ripeness, §1 and §2 Sherman Act claims, and an Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA) claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ripeness | Return of application and multi‑year delay constituted present harm; claim ripe. | Returning the application was not a denial; claims speculative until final denial. | Ripeness: claim is ripe — returning the application and delay constituted present harm. |
| §1 Sherman Act (conspiracy) | Defendants formed a front ABDS and coordinated lobbying, statements, and procedural changes to block entry — parallel conduct and overlapping leadership show agreement. | Entities were distinct; conduct was unilateral, protected lobbying/litigation, and insufficient circumstantial evidence of an agreement (Copperweld defense for affiliated actors). | §1 dismissed — complaint fails to plausibly allege an agreement restraining trade; allegations show unilateral/independent actions, protected activity, or ordinary competitive conduct. |
| §2 Sherman Act (monopolization) | AB Oral Implantology has monopoly power; defendants willfully maintained monopoly via ABDS approval power and exclusionary conduct causing anticompetitive injury. | Plaintiffs can offer a competing certification; defendants lack means to control market output; statements and refusal to deal are lawful; no anticompetitive conduct alleged. | §2 dismissed — plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege monopoly power in the properly defined product market or willful exclusionary conduct; derivative market claim also inadequate. |
| Illinois UDTPA (disparagement) | Defendants made false/misleading factual statements disparaging plaintiffs (e.g., newsletters, comments to institute graduates). | Statements were opinion/commercial speech; plaintiffs fail to plead particularized misrepresentations that occurred primarily and substantially in Illinois. | UDTPA claim dismissed for failure to plead with Rule 9(b) particularity and failure to allege the statements occurred primarily and substantially in Illinois. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard; legal conclusions not accepted)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard for antitrust conspiracies)
- Copperweld Corp. v. Indep. Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752 (single‑entity/Copperweld doctrine bars §1 claim when unity of interest exists)
- Am. Needle, Inc. v. Nat'l Football League, 560 U.S. 183 (distinguishing independent actors from single entity in §1 context)
- United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563 (elements of monopolization under §2)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (private antitrust plaintiff must show antitrust injury and appropriate damages model)
- E. R. R. Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, 365 U.S. 127 (Noerr‑Pennington doctrine protecting petitioning activity)
- Lawline v. Am. Bar Ass'n, 956 F.2d 1378 (trade‑association endorsements and limits on antitrust liability for evaluative certifications)
- Schachar v. Am. Acad. of Ophthalmology, 870 F.2d 397 (association evaluations and antitrust restraint analysis)
- Sanderson v. Culligan Int'l Co., 415 F.3d 620 (commercial speech and false statements not ordinarily antitrust violations)