Reported / Citable
Background
Dental practices and consumers alleged that Align Technology used its Invisalign aligners and iTero scanners to maintain monopolies. Their theory centered on Align’s termination of digital interoperability between Invisalign and a rival 3Shape scanner.
The Northern District of California entered summary judgment for Align. The appeal asked how courts should evaluate a monopolist’s stated business justification after plaintiffs produce evidence of anticompetitive refusal-to-deal conduct.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit reversed and clarified the burden-shifting framework for Sherman Act section 2 cases. Plaintiffs first must show anticompetitive conduct; the defendant then must offer a genuine procompetitive justification; plaintiffs may rebut that justification as illegitimate or pretextual.
Only if the justification survives rebuttal must plaintiffs show that anticompetitive harm outweighs procompetitive benefits. The record permitted a factfinder to question Align’s explanation, so summary judgment improperly cut off the cases.
Key Takeaways
- A claimed business justification is not automatically accepted at face value.
- Plaintiffs can survive by producing evidence that the stated reason is pretextual.
- Balancing is necessary only if a legitimate justification remains after rebuttal.
- Internal documents and the history of dealing with rivals can be decisive evidence.
Why It Matters
The published decision is significant for California technology platforms whose products must interoperate with complementary tools. Businesses with market power should contemporaneously document legitimate reasons for terminating access, while antitrust plaintiffs should seek evidence comparing public explanations with internal decision-making.