Innotron Diagnostics v. Abbott Laboratories

892 F.2d 1046 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Innotron DIAGNOSTICS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Defendant-Appellee. No. 88-6511. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Oct. 3, 1989. Decided Dec. 15, 1989. Before TANG, CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 Innotron Diagnostics ("Innotron") appeals the district court's partial summary judgment dismissal of its Sherman Act antitrust claims against Abbott Laboratories ("Abbott"). We affirm. DISCUSSION 1. Sherman Act Section 1 Claim 3 Innotron asserts that the district court erred when it dismissed the Sherman Act Section 1 claim. We disagree. 4 We conclude that Innotron has failed to produce enough evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact; that is, enough evidence to allow a reasonable jury to find in its favor on whether Abbott forced buyers of its TDx to purchase its reagents. See Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist. No. 2 v.…