U.S. Wholesale Outlet & Distribution, Inc. v. Innovation Ventures, LLC, 2:18-cv-01077

Plaintiffs are California-based wholesalers who sell 5-hour ENERGY® and alleged price discrimination under the Robinson-Patman Act and unfair competition under California law.
Defendants, Living Essentials, LLC and Innovation Ventures, LLC, manufacture and distribute 5-hour ENERGY®, selling both to Plaintiffs (via Paramount Sales Group) and to Costco (via other brokers).
Plaintiffs argued they paid higher prices and received fewer promotional benefits compared to Costco, despite competing at the same functional level and geographic area.
Prior findings (including those by the Ninth Circuit) affirmed some of the Court’s jury instructions but directed the district court to reconsider whether the Plaintiffs and Costco made purchases during the same period for purposes of Section 2(d).
The court found Defendants provided disproportionate promotional allowances to Costco compared to Plaintiffs, but Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the required antitrust injury for their claims to succeed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Section 2(d) Robinson-Patman violation (promotional allowances)	Plaintiffs received less valuable promotions than Costco, in violation of Section 2(d).	Promotions were tailored to each customer and proportionally equal by need; no violation.	Plaintiffs proved disproportionate treatment, but did not prove antitrust injury.
Competition between Plaintiffs and Costco	Plaintiffs and Costco's CBCs operated in close proximity, at same functional level, selling the same product.	Plaintiffs not sufficiently similar or competing with Costco for same customers.	Plaintiffs were competitors for RPA purposes.
Requirement to show antitrust injury	Discriminatory conduct and loss of promotional payments itself is sufficient harm.	Plaintiffs must show actual competitive injury (not just unequal treatment).	Discrimination alone insufficient; no evidence of diverted sales or required price cuts.
California Unfair Competition Law claim	UCL claim survives independently of RPA outcome.	UCL claim fails if RPA claim fails, as conduct is the same.	UCL claim fails due to failure on RPA claim.

Volvo Trucks N. Am., Inc. v. Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc., 546 U.S. 164 (interpreted scope and elements of Robinson-Patman Act, requiring showing of competitive injury)
Woodman’s Food Market, Inc. v. Clorox Co., 833 F.3d 743 (addressed proof standards for Section 2(d) Robinson-Patman claims)
Feesers, Inc. v. Michael Foods, Inc., 591 F.3d 191 (secondary-line injury and application of proportionality)
England v. Chrysler Corp., 493 F.2d 269 (Ninth Circuit precedent on competition and injury under RPA)
Ellis v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 24 F.4th 1262 (antitrust injury requirements in the Ninth Circuit)
Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 829 F.2d 729 (injury requirements for secondary-line Robinson-Patman claims)