Legal Opinion
Advanced Technology Corp. v. Instron, Inc.
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided February 26, 2013No. Civil Action No. 12-10171-JLTPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
TAURO, District Judge.
I. Introduction
Plaintiff Advanced Technology Corporation (“ATC”) developed an innovative technique for measuring the tensile properties of metallic materials, called Automated Ball Indentation (“ABI”). ATC alleges that its competitors — Defendants Instron Inc. (“Instron”), Tinius Olsen International Co. (“Tinius Olsen”), and MTS Systems Corporation (“MTS”) — conspired to maintain their dominance in the market for mechanical testing equipment, in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, § 11. ATC alleges that Defendants did so by using…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Burtch v. Milberg Factors, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2011
- Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company and Nu-Car Carriers, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1984
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- SD3, LLC v. Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2015
- Advanced Technology Corp. v. Instron, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2014
- SD3, LLC v. Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2015
- SD3, LLC v. Black & Decker Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2015