Competitors of Copier Equipment Provider Entitled to a "Kodak Moment" in Alleging a Single Provider Relevant "Aftermarket" in Avoiding a Motion to Dismiss
Competitors of a copier equipment provider, IKON Office Solution ("IKON") alleged that defendant IKON used "fraudulent practices" to secure and lengthen its customer contracts, and thus reducing the ability of competing copier equipment providers to contest for "aftermarket" business. The district court granted a motion to dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6), on the ground that IKON did not have market power over a "unique" product or service, and that any control that it had acquired over its customers was a function of contract, and not market power. The district court distinguished Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc.,[1] and relied on the decision of the Third Circuit in Queen City Pizza, Inc. v. Domino's Pizza, Inc.[2] The court held that the parties copier equipment was interchangeable, and thus within the same relevant market. It was only the defendant's customer contracts that prevented plaintiffs from attempting to gain aftermarket business from defendant's customers.
Continue Reading...
