United States: Ninth Circuit Grounds Aftermarket Claims, Refusing To Stretch Antitrust Theories And Reminding Plaintiffs That Allegations Must Be Supported By Evidence Of Anti-Competitive Harm

Last Updated: September 14 2016
Article by Antitrust Watch

Article by Howard Ullman and David Goldstein

Last week, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a summary judgment disposing of numerous antitrust claims brought by an independent servicer against a manufacturer of systems and parts that also provides service. The court emphasized that "[t]his case serves as a reminder that anecdotal speculation and supposition are not a substitute for evidence, and that evidence decoupled from harm to competition—the bellweather of antitrust—is insufficient to defeat summary judgment." Aerotec Int'l, Inc. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., No. 14-15562 (9th Cir. Sept. 9, 2016).

Auxiliary Power Units ("APUs") power an airplane's air conditioning, cabin lights and instrumentation. Aerotec International, Inc. ("Aerotec'), a small servicer of APUs, including those manufactured by Honeywell International, Inc. ("Honeywell"), complained that Honeywell had stalled Aerotec's sales efforts and prevented it from reaching cruising altitude through a variety of alleged anticompetitive conduct.

Honeywell has above a 70% share of the APU market, which includes just one other major manufacturer. Honeywell sells both APUs, APU parts, and APU service. Aerotec's share of the repair market—which includes dozens of other firms—is about 1%. Some airlines also undertake their own APU servicing. Honeywell has a tiered pricing structure for its APU parts: Honeywell "affiliates" get the best pricing for and priority access to parts under long-term agreements that impose obligations on the affiliates. Airlines pay more than affiliates, and independent servicers—like Aerotec—pay even more on the spot market for Honeywell's OEM parts. Those servicers, including Aerotec, can and do buy third-party parts approved by the FAA. Using such parts, Aerotec touted that its prices were 20% lower than its competitors on average.

Although Aerotec had some success as an APU servicer for a time, it claimed that its business was hurt when it had difficulty obtaining parts from Honeywell during what Honeywell deemed a parts shortage (which Aerotec alleged was pretextual). Aerotec also alleged that Honeywell maintained an overly burdensome ordering process, held Aerotec to stringent payment terms, withheld technical information, offered steeply discounted bundles of parts and repair services, and engaged in price discrimination against Aerotec and other independent servicers.

The Ninth Circuit had no difficulty in grounding Aerotec's Sherman Act Section 1 and Section 2 claims and its Robinson-Patman Act claim. Aerotec advanced two Section 1 claims. First, it argued that Honeywell had unlawfully tied APU parts to service. This claim foundered because Aerotec presented no evidence of a tie, i.e., evidence that Honeywell either required customers to purchase Honeywell service if they wanted to buy APU parts or that Honeywell required customers not to purchaser service from others. The Ninth Circuit refused to stretch tying law to reach parts delays, pricing decisions, and removal of technical data. Those behaviors were directed not at a customer but at a competitor (Aerotec), distinguishing the situation from that in Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs. Inc., 504 U.S. 451 (1992). The court rejected Aerotec's arguments that Honeywell "created an implied tie by making the purchase of Honeywell's services an economic imperative." Aerotec's chain of logic and evidence – that airlines learned the "game" that to get parts, they should buy Honeywell service to avoid the complications or difficulties associated with using Aerotec—was "too attenuated to support liability" under Section 1. "[A]rguably manipulative tactics imposed on a third-party competitor are [not] sufficient by themselves to create a tie with respect to a separate buyer simply because they make it less desirable to purchase from the third party."

Aerotec also argued that Honeywell violated Section 1 through exclusive dealing arrangements with customers. However, Aerotec did not present a global agreement by Honeywell with its customers. Other than submitting some evidence that purchasers of repair services contract for 3-7 years at a time, Aerotec failed to specify the amount or duration of foreclosure from any of Honeywell's particular customer contracts. Aerotec's "speculation and innuendo . . . cannot substitute for evidence." The Ninth Circuit also declined to decide whether a substantial discount could amount to a de facto exclusive agreement. Even if it can, there was no evidence of any exclusive requirements on which the discounts were conditioned. The de facto theory did not "provide Aerotec an end run around the obligation to first show that express or implied contractual terms in fact substantially foreclosed dealing with a competitor for the same good or service."

As to the Section 2 claim, Aerotec first argued that Honeywell had engaged in an unlawful refusal to deal with a competitor. This claim failed because even a monopolist has no general duty to deal, and Aerotec's allegations did not fit within the "narrow exception" recognized in Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 (1985). Aerotec "simply did not like the business terms offered by Honeywell, especially after things began to change in 2007. But this 'business pattern' can hardly be characterized as so onerous as to be tantamount to the conduct in Aspen Skiing." Aerotec's "vague requested remedy" that the court order Honeywell to provide parts, data and prices like it did before 2007 "reveal[ed] the problem with Aerotec's refusal to deal claim: providing any meaningful guidance to Honeywell and ordering it to artificially create pre-2007 market conditions would require the courts to play precisely the kind of 'central plan[ing]' role that courts are 'ill suited' to play."

Aerotec also argued that it had presented sufficient evidence of a Section 2 essential facilities claim, reasoning that APU parts are an essential facility without which repairs are impossible. The Ninth Circuit explained that it has treated essential facilities as a basis for a Section 2 claim even though the Supreme Court has never recognized the doctrine. Even so, the court said that this claim failed for an "obvious" reason—a facility is only "essential" where it is otherwise unavailable. The evidence showed that Aerotec had access to parts from sources other than Honeywell itself.

Aerotec's bundled discount claim under Section 2 also failed because of a lack of credible evidence that Honeywell priced repair services below cost. Emphasizing that low prices benefit consumers regardless of how they are set, the Ninth Circuit refused to apply the discount attribution test of Cascade Health Solutions v. PeaceHealth, 515 F.3d 883 (9th Cir. 2008), because that test does not apply where the parties offer the same bundle of good and services, and Aerotec offered both APU parts and services (just like Honeywell). On a bundle-to-bundle comparison, Aerotec could provide services more efficiently than Honeywell, which would enable it to avoid selling parts at cost. Aerotec's argument that Honeywell was unlawfully charging it high wholesale prices for APU parts while it was charging low (but above-cost) prices for repair bundles was foreclosed by the Supreme Court's decision in Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. linkLine Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438 (2009), which held that "price-squeeze" claims are not actionable.

Finally, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the summary judgment for Honeywell on Aerotec's Robinson-Patman Act price discrimination claim. While Honeywell gave its affiliates with long-term contracts better pricing, Honeywell received benefits under those long-term arrangements, including substantial obligations imposed on affiliates such as payment of license/royalty fees, maintenance of insurance, exclusive use of Honeywell parts, and compliance with policies, regulations, and procedures promulgated by Honeywell. These obligations made spot sales to Aerotec and affiliate sales not comparable for Robinson-Patman purposes. Cf. our recent blog posts on Robinson-Patman Act issues.

Aerotec stands as a further reminder that antitrust law is designed to protect competition, not competitors. If a plaintiff fails to marshal evidence of anticompetitive harm, and instead relies on generalizations and speculation and attempts to stretch existing antitrust categories beyond their limits, the plaintiff's claims should and likely will fail.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
26 Sep 2018, Seminar, Tokyo, Japan

Orrick’s Global Japan Practice is hosting a series of “Orrick Library” seminars to explore legal issues in various fields in Japan as well as the United States, Asia and Europe

26 Sep 2018, Conference, New York, United States

Employment Partner, Mandy Perry and Chair of Orrick's Global Employment Law Practice, Mike Delikat will be participating in the Global Business Protections 2018: International Restrictive Covenants and Confidential Information Conference.

10 Oct 2018, Conference, Florida, United States
Julie Totten is Program Chair of this year’s conference, Lynne Hermle is speaking on women in the courtroom, boardroom, and c-suite, and Erin Connell is speaking on pay equity and pay transparency.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions