Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Cigarette manufacturing is a concentrated industry dominated by only six firms, including the two parties here. P developed a line of generic cigarettes offered at a list price roughly 30% lower than that of branded cigarettes. By 1984, generics had captured 4% of the market, at the expense of branded cigarettes, and D entered the economy segment, beating P's net price. P responded in kind, precipitating a price war. D's volume discounts to wholesalers were larger. D's rebate structure also encompassed a greater number of volume categories than P's, with the highest categories carrying special rebates for orders of very substantial size. P increased its own wholesale rebates. This precipitated a price war at the wholesale level, in which P five times attempted to beat the rebates offered by D. D always maintained a real advantage over P's prices. P contends that by the end of the rebate war, D was selling its generic products at a loss. This rebate war occurred before D had sold a single generic cigarette. P sued alleging trademark infringement, unfair competition, and eventually an antitrust claim under § 2(a) of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act. P claimed that D's discriminatory volume rebates were integral to a scheme of predatory pricing, in which D reduced its net prices for generic cigarettes below average variable costs. After P's June 1985 increase, list prices on generics did not change again until the summer of 1986, when a pattern of twice yearly increases in tandem with the full-priced branded cigarettes was established. The jury returned a verdict for P. The District Court held that D was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on three separate grounds: lack of injury to competition, lack of antitrust injury to P, and lack of a causal link between the discriminatory rebates and P's alleged injury. P appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.