In recent years, in cases involving the telecommunications industry, the Supreme Court has narrowed substantially the situations where an alleged monopolist has an obligation to deal with competitors ("Trinko")1 and where allegations of parallel conduct are sufficient to state an antitrust claim ("Twombley").2 There has been considerable speculation as to how broadly the lower federal courts would apply these cases and as to whether any of these decisions would be limited to the highly regulated and complex telecommunications industry.3 On the day after Labor Day, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit provided an important partial response in a case with allegations of conspiracy and attempted monopolization involving a firm not in the telecommunications industry by affirming the dismissal of an antitrust complaint.
Plaintiffs in In re Elevator Antitrust Litigation4 represented a putative class of persons who "purchased elevators and/or elevator maintenance and repair services" from sellers of elevators and maintenance service. The complaint alleged:
price fixing;
a conspiracy to monopolize the markets for the sale and maintenance of elevators; and
an attempt to monopolize a unilateral monopolization by each defendant of the maintenance market for its own elevators by making it difficult for independent maintenance companies (and each other) to service each...
