Summary judgment in antitrust action is denied; jurisdictional and venue defenses are upheld
Howard Hess Dental, et al., v. Dentsply International, Inc., C.A. Nos. 99-255-SLR and 01-267, September 26, 2007.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue is granted.
This antitrust suit centers around Dentsply’s policy “Dealer Criterion 6" which provided that dental dealers promoting Dentsply’s products “may not add further tooth lines to their product offering.” Plaintiff’s claim that Dentsply is collaterally estopped from contesting liability for exclusive dealing/monopoly maintenance is denied because the prior government action did not address specific injuries to plaintiffs in this case. Lack of personal jurisdiction was found where defendants had no contacts with Delaware, rejecting to apply a “national contacts test." Dismissal of two counts was appropriate where plaintiffs could not obtain the relief of overcharge damages. Furthermore, the element of specific intent is missing.
A copy of the full opinion is available here.
