American Bearing Co. v. Litton Industries, Inc.
| Decision Date | 26 May 1982 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 78-2003. |
| Citation | 540 F. Supp. 1163 |
| Parties | The AMERICAN BEARING COMPANY, INC. v. LITTON INDUSTRIES, INC. and Litton Industrial Products, Inc. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
C. Gary Wynkoop, Blank, Rome, Comisky & McCauley, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.
Michael W. Graney, Howrey & Simon, Washington, D. C., John T. Clary, Clary, Mimnaugh & McGonigle, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants.
This case comes before the Court on the post-trial motion of defendant Litton Industrial Products, Inc. for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial. The jury returned a verdict finding Litton liable for both monopolization and attempted monopolization in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act and assessed damages in the amount of $958,691.00. For the reasons set forth below, the Court has determined to grant a new trial with respect to plaintiff's § 2 Sherman Act claims.
Respect for the collective wisdom of the jury is sufficient in most cases to enable the judge to accept the findings of the jury regardless of his own doubts in the result reached by the jury. However, the trial judge must grant a new trial when his failure to do so would result in a miscarriage of justice. I find that there has been a miscarriage of justice in this case.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff American Bearing Company, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation that was formed in 1970 by Ronald L. Roman and Robert A. Furchak. The offices and manufacturing facilities of American Bearing Co. are located in Fairfield, New Jersey. Defendant Litton Industrial Products, Inc.1 is a Delaware corporation which manufactures a wide variety of industrial products and equipment and its Merriman Division, located in Hingham, Massachusetts, manufactures and sells a variety of bearings for use in construction and industrial applications both Litton Industrial Products, Inc. and its Merriman Division will hereinafter be referred to collectively as Litton. The plaintiff American Bearing Co. (American Bearing) also manufactures bearings for use in construction and industrial applications. One type of bearing which they both manufacture is called a slide bearing.
Slide bearings are used in the heavy construction industry to allow structures to move in response to the expansion and contraction of their component materials. Slide bearings are manufactured in a variety of sizes and are made from a variety of materials such as bronze, meehanite and steel. The different base materials from which the bearings are made, together with other factors such as the coating affixed to the bearing's surface and lubricants used in conjunction with the bearing, affect the parameters at which the bearing can operate, expressed in terms of temperature, pressure per square inch and coefficient of friction. The type of bearing which can be used in a given structure varies according to the type and size of each structure. Typically, the builder or manufacturer of a given structure will designate the parameters at which the bearing will be required to operate and the bearing manufacturers will then submit bids for those of their bearings which will meet the requirements of the given job. Sometimes the builder or manufacturer of the structure will also specify the type of bearing preferred for use, such as a bronze or meehanite bearing.
Among the structures which require the use of slide bearings are electrostatic precipitators and baghouses which are huge structures used to control pollution by removing harmful elements from industrial discharges. Due to the large size and high operating temperatures of these structures they require slide bearings which can operate at high temperatures and pressures. In early 1975 Litton began selling slide bearings for use under electrostatic baghouses and precipitators. Although other types of bearings were also being used in baghouses and precipitators, a teflon-coated bearing developed and patented by Litton became very popular for use in these structures because it could operate at high temperatures with a low coefficient of friction while under heavy load conditions. Because of its patent, Litton was virtually the only source of teflon-coated bearings.
Sometime in 1975 American Bearing, a company formed by Ronald Roman and Robert Furchak, began developing a new method of producing a teflon-coated bearing. Beginning in or about June 1975, American Bearing began contacting potential purchasers of this bearing and distributed literature promoting its use. The literature distributed by American Bearing said that the bearing, which American Bearing called its "Hi-Load" bearing, would work at specifications of 400° F, 3000 pounds p.s.i., with a 3% coefficient of friction. In connection with the promotion of its bearing, American Bearing prepared 2" by 2" sample bearings for use as sales aids. American Bearing made its first sale and shipment of production bearings in May or June of 1976.
In or about March 1976 one of Litton's salesmen obtained one of the American Bearing sample bearings. During the course of two days, Litton subjected the bearing to 16 hours of testing after first cutting the bearing in half. The results of the testing, together with a conclusion which stated "Therefore it is our opinion that this bearing cannot function at the specified load and temperature conditions", were set forth in a test report dated March 26, 1976. The conclusion stated in the report was based on the observation that the surface of the bearing exhibited some cracking and "extruding". Litton sent the test report to a number of precipitator and baghouse manufacturers and gave copies to their (Litton's) sales personnel for use in the field.
On June 15, 1978, American Bearing initiated this suit alleging that Litton's test report was false and that its publication by Litton constituted product defamation. In addition, American Bearing asserted that Litton had attempted to monopolize and/or monopolized the market for slide bearings between 1976 and June 15, 1978.
At trial, American Bearing presented testimony, the thrust of which was that Litton knew or should have known by the size of the bearing and the attendant circumstances that the tested bearing was a sample—a sales aid as opposed to a functional bearing and had not been manufactured with the intention that anyone would use it. Furthermore, it was testified that cutting the bearing in half, as Litton did for its tests, destroyed its structural integrity. In addition, Professor Roll, an expert testifying on behalf of American Bearing, stated that he had tested functional teflon-coated bearings produced by American Bearing and that they met the specifications stated by American Bearing.
In addition to Professor Roll, American Bearing also presented the testimony of three other expert witnesses: Mr. Albert Hudson, Mr. Robert McIlvaine and Professor Gary Bowman (hereinafter "economist"). Mr. Hudson's experience in this field included a period of employment as the Head Mechanical Engineer for the Tennessee Valley Authority Fossil and Air Pollution Control Equipment in which capacity he organized and directed the largest air pollution retrofit program in the utility industry. Mr. Hudson supplied general information relating to the structure and purposes of baghouses and precipitators and the advantages inherent in the use of teflon-coated slide bearings in those structures. Mr. Hudson testified that although the actual operating temperatures of many baghouses and precipitators may be below 400° it was the practice in the industry to use a bearing capable of operating at 400° with a low coefficient of friction in order to allow an ample margin of safety. Mr. Hudson also testified that the relationship between the cost of slide bearings relative to the flange to flange cost of precipitators and baghouses is such that these bearings account for .3% of the flange to flange cost.
Mr. Robert McIlvaine offered his expert opinions and conclusions with respect to the national market for "hot" precipitators and fabric fibers (baghouses), that is, precipitators and baghouses which operated in excess of 250°. Mr. McIlvaine presented figures representing the dollar value for the sales of "hot" precipitators and baghouses in the national market for the years 1976-80 with projections of sales through 1983 and testified as to the market shares of various baghouse and precipitator manufacturers.
The economist whose testimony, together with that of Messrs. Hudson and McIlvaine, is discussed in greater detail later in this memorandum, testified with respect to a market study he conducted of the "thermal" bearing industry. The economist defined a "thermal" bearing as a bearing which operates at 400° F, at a pressure of 3000 pounds p.s.i., with a 3% coefficient of friction. He gave his opinion that a separate product market exists for thermal bearings for use in the support structures of baghouses and precipitators and that the geographical scope of the market is nation-wide. Using the figures calculated by Messrs. Hudson and McIlvaine, he calculated the size of the relevant market in terms of the total dollar amount of sales of thermal bearings for the years 1976-1983. He also offered his opinion as to the share of the market American Bearing would have attained in the absence of any illegal conduct, as well as to the actual market shares of American Bearing and Litton for the years 1976-1980. The economist also testified that American Bearing's failure to achieve the projected market shares was attributable solely to Litton's circulation of a false test report. Lastly, he calculated the amount of profits American Bearing purportedly lost in the past and would continue to lose through 1983 as a result of Litton's circulation of the test report.
Litton, on the other hand, offered evidence that it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Loeffel Steel Products, Inc. v. Delta Brands, Inc.
...by Daubert is not present when his or her opinion is speculative or rests on an unsound basis. See American Bearing Co. v. Litton Industries, Inc., 540 F.Supp. 1163, 1173 (E.D.Pa.1982), aff'd on other grounds, 729 F.2d 943 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied 469 U.S. 854, 105 S.Ct. 178, 83 L.Ed.2d 112......
-
ET Barwick Industries v. Walter E. Heller & Co.
...and conclusory allegations advanced by an expert are neither admissible at trial, see, e.g., American Bearing Co. v. Litton Industries, Inc., 540 F.Supp. 1163, 1171-75 (E.D.Pa.1982), cert. denied 469 U.S. 854, 105 S.Ct. 178, 83 L.Ed.2d 112 (1984), nor are they entitled to any weight when ra......
- Buckeye State Mut. Ins. Co. v. Moens
-
Southern Pac. Com. Co. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co.
...what the effect of lawful competition would have been and reduce the damages accordingly." Accord, American Bearing Co. v. Litton Industries, Inc., 540 F.Supp. 1163 (E.D.Pa. 1982). SPCC also produced no evidence that it could or would maintain a 15 percent price discount below AT & T's rate......
-
Speculative Questions
...substance of testimony. See also Ryan v. Beisner , 844 P.2d 24 (Idaho App. 1992); American Bearing Co. v. Litton Industries, Inc ., 540 F.Supp. 1163 (E.D. Pa. 1982); Murphy Tugboat Company v. Crowley , 658 F.2d 1256 (9th Cir. 1981); United States v. 91.9 Acres of Land, Etc ., 586 F.2d 79 (8......
-
Table of Cases
...2008), §§6.701, 25.201 Amco Ins. Co. v. Stammer , 411 N.W.2d 709 (Iowa 1987), §45.200 American Bearing Co. v. Litton Indus., Inc. , 540 F.Supp. 1163, (E.D.Pa. 1982), §11.500 American Cast Iron Pipe Co. v. Williams , 591 So.2d 854 (Ala. 1991), §22.428 American Cent. City, Inc. v. Joint Antel......
-
Speculative Questions
...substance of testimony. See also Ryan v. Beisner , 844 P.2d 24 (Idaho App. 1992); American Bearing Co. v. Litton Industries, Inc ., 540 F.Supp. 1163 (E.D. Pa. 1982); Murphy Tugboat Company v. Crowley , 658 F.2d 1256 (9th Cir. 1981); United States v. 91.9 Acres of Land, Etc ., 586 F.2d 79 (8......
-
Speculative questions
...substance of testimony. See also Ryan v. Beisner , 844 P.2d 24 (Idaho App. 1992); American Bearing Co. v. Litton Industries, Inc ., 540 F.Supp. 1163 (E.D. Pa. 1982); Murphy Tugboat Company v. Crowley , 658 F.2d 1256 (9th Cir. 1981); United States v. 91.9 Acres of Land, Etc ., 586 F.2d 79 (8......