9th Cir.
10-26083
The court of appeals affirmed a district court judgment. The court held that a Robinson-Patman Act plaintiff failed to show that its competitor had actual knowledge, trade knowledge, or a duty to inquire as to whether it was receiving unlawfully favorable prices from a mutual manufacturer where the plaintiff and its competitor were substantially different customers for the manufacturer in ways that could naturally support the competitor’s favored status. The court held further that the plaintiff failed to show that its competitor and the manufacturer entered into an agreement in restraint of trade where the purported agreement had no impact on the pertinent market as a whole.
