Plaintiff, DM Research, brought an antitrust suit against the College of American Pathologists ("the College") and National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards ("National"). The basis of the suit was an alleged antitrust conspiracy by DM Research against the College and National. Plaintiff was a chemical manufacturer specializing in reagents, which included purified reagent water. National issued a series of guidelines and standards which did not comport with plaintiff’s own standards and practices. The College, though they had no binding effect, adopted National’s guidelines (National is an accrediting organization). The district court dismissed plaintiff’s action for failure to state a claim and for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeals first noted its distaste for the lack of specificity of the plaintiff’s Complaint. However, proceeding onward, the court stated that since the plaintiff had alleged that the two defendant organizations were independent actors, the essential argument lay in the idea that any agreement between two independent actors brings up enough scrutiny to use a "reasonableness" test to see whether there was in fact a conspiracy. The court admitted that this is an easier task when asked to look at two factories; however, it is difficult to see what type of advantage the defendants in this case were seeking. They were both non-profit organizations with no vested interest in promulgating a faulty standard, as alleged by the plaintiff. The Court of Appeals also detailed the fact that sometimes guidelines and standards serve a very important social utility.

The court affirmed the dismissal.

Summary    <Analysis>   Full-Text   Case Index