In Oncology Tech Inc. v. Elekta Inc. et al., Western District of Texas Judge Harry Lee Hudspeth dismissed antitrust claims asserted by medical device maker, Oncology Tech Inc., against Impac Medical Systems Inc., holding that the lawsuit did not sufficiently establish that Impac monopolized the market for a radiation therapy component used to treat cancer. Oncology Tech originally filed this suit after Impac shut down a lucrative, five-year arrangement with Oncology Tech, where Impac agreed to make Oncology Tech’s brass compensators available to its clients in exchange for Oncology Tech’s agreement to produce the devices.
In dismissing Oncology Tech’s antitrust claims, the court rejected Oncology Tech’s argument that Impac eliminated competition in the market for brass compensators. According to the court, where a plaintiff fails to define the relevant market with reference to the rule of reasonable interchangeability and cross-elasticity of demand, or alleges a proposed market that clearly does not encompass all interchangeable substitute products even when all factual inferences are granted in plaintiff’s favor, the relevant market is legally insufficient. The court held that plaintiff’s market definition was legally insufficient because there are unrestricted alternatives being produced by other companies that apparently fall within the same market.
In a separate order, the court refused to dismiss Oncology Tech’s claim against Impac under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Although the act does not apply to transactions exceeding $500,000, the court ruled that Impac failed to show Oncology Tech paid more than that amount in a business deal that is the subject of the suit.