Energy Conversion Devices Liquidation Trust v. Trina Solar Ltd.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SUTTON, Circuit Judge.
Consumers benefit when market competition leads to lower prices. Competitors do not. Because antitrust law protects “competition, not competitors,” Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 320, 82 S.Ct. 1502, 8 L.Ed.2d 510 (1962), courts are leery of antitrust claims brought by competitors alleging only that their rivals lowered prices and forced them out of business.
That is the claim Energy Conversion Devices pursues. It alleges that three solar-panel producers agreed to decrease prices to below-cost levels and, by doing so, drove the company into…
2Cases cited37 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Auraria Student Housing at the Regency, LLC v. Campus Village Apartments, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2016
- St. Luke's Hosp. v. ProMedica Health Sys, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2021
- Emergency Department Physicians P.C. v. UnitedHealthcare, Inc.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 2021
- Foster v. Sitel Operating CorporationDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 2023
- Hasan v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee · 2023
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.