9th Circuit Revives Antitrust Suit Against Invisalign Maker

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit revived an antitrust lawsuit against the company behind Invisalign and the handheld intraoral scanner iTero, finding that a California federal court had improperly granted summary judgment in the company's favor.

This ruling holds significant legal implications for antitrust practitioners and businesses, particularly those operating in technology-driven markets with dominant players. The Ninth Circuit's decision to overturn summary judgment indicates that the plaintiffs presented a sufficient *prima facie* case, raising genuine issues of material fact regarding the Invisalign firm's alleged attempt to "monopolize the aligner and scanner markets." The core of the claim revolves around the termination of an interoperability agreement with TRIOS, a competing scanner, and whether this action lacked a "procompetitive, nonpretextual business justification." This signals that courts will closely scrutinize actions by dominant firms that could be perceived as exclusionary, especially when they involve cutting off access to essential interoperability.

The legal context for this case is federal antitrust law, primarily the Sherman Act, which prohibits monopolization and attempts to monopolize (Section 2). The concept of "refusal to deal" is central, a complex area of antitrust jurisprudence often analyzed under precedents like *Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp.* and *Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP*. These cases establish that while firms generally have no duty to deal with competitors, a refusal can be anticompetitive under specific, narrow circumstances, particularly if it involves terminating a prior, profitable course of dealing without a legitimate business justification. The Ninth Circuit is a federal appellate court, reviewing decisions from federal district courts within its circuit. The key parties include the plaintiffs who initiated the antitrust suit, the company behind Invisalign and iTero, and TRIOS, the competing scanner. The excerpt does not report the final outcome of the antitrust suit, only that it has been revived for further proceedings.

For attorneys advising companies with substantial market power, especially in sectors reliant on interoperability or proprietary technology, this decision underscores the critical need for robust antitrust compliance. Any decision to terminate interoperability agreements or alter relationships with competitors must be supported by clear, documented, and genuinely procompetitive business justifications. Businesses should conduct thorough antitrust risk assessments before implementing such changes, as courts, particularly the Ninth Circuit, appear willing to allow such cases to proceed to trial if a plausible anticompetitive motive is alleged. For plaintiffs, this ruling provides a valuable roadmap, emphasizing the importance of establishing a strong *prima facie* case that challenges the defendant's justifications and demonstrates potential harm to competition.