Simon and Simon, PC v. Align Technology, Inc.

facts, the applicable legal standards, and the arguments made by the parties. Align makes three categories of arguments in opposition to class certification in both actions. First, it argues that the alleged exclusive dealing agreements—the Fusion program, the Advantage program, and the Dental Services Organization contracts—are inappropriately incorporated into the expert models that purport to show common antitrust injury and damages. Second, it argues that other flaws with the expert models render them unreliable and the expert testimony excludable, or, at least, render them so flawed that the questions they purport to answer have not been shown to be capable of class-wide resolution. Third, it argues that various issues with the assorted named plaintiffs render them unable to satisfy the typicality or adequacy requirements of Rule 23. None of these arguments defeats class certification, with one exception: neither of the direct purchaser plaintiffs purchased a scanner within the class period, and thus there is no typical scanner purchaser plaintiff. Certification of a scanner purchaser class is therefore denied. Class certification is granted for the class of direct purchasers…