In Suture Express Inc. v. Cardinal Health Inc. et al., Kansas District Court Judge Richard D. Rogers dismissed portions of Suture Express Inc.’s $200 million antitrust suit against units of Cardinal Health Inc. and Owens & Minor Inc. In its suit, plaintiff accused the defendants of predatory pricing and tying, in their sale of wound closure products. As part of his order, Judge Rogers held that circumstantial evidence of prior agreement between the defendants to aid each other against their own individual interests, is not enough to plead conspiracy. The court also dismissed Suture Express’ Sherman Act monopolization claim, because plaintiff failed to support it.
The judge did, however, allow Suture Express’ Sherman Act and state-law tying, as well as bundling claims to proceed, ruling that it made plausible claims for these allegations to go forward. The court also kept plaintiff’s state-law restraint of trade and Clayton Act exclusive dealing claims, stating that Suture Express made a reasonable allegation about the effect of the defendants’ discount programs on the wound closure product market.