Harrison Aire, Inc. v. Aerostar Intern., Inc.
| Decision Date | 16 September 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 04-3052.,No. 04-2904.,04-2904.,04-3052. |
| Parties | HARRISON AIRE, INC., Appellant v. AEROSTAR INTERNATIONAL, INC.; Raven Industries, Inc., Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
John K. Weston (Argued), Julie C. Parker, Sacks, Weston, Smolinsky, Albert & Luber, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee, Harrison Aire, Inc.
Jeffrey A. Oshin (Argued), Hardin, Kundla, McKeon, Poletto & Polifroni, Springfield, New Jersey, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants, Aerostar International, Inc. and Raven Industries, Inc.
Before SCIRICA, Chief Judge, ROTH and BECKER, Circuit Judges.
In this antitrust action, we address allegations of unlawful monopolization and tying in the aftermarket for replacement hot air balloon fabric. The District Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding no triable issue of monopoly power in the relevant product market. We will affirm.
Harrison Aire, a hot air balloon ride operator, alleges antitrust violations by Raven Industries and its balloon-manufacturing subsidiary, Aerostar International. Consistent with our standard of review on summary judgment, we recount the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, appellant Harrison Aire.
Terry Harrison, the sole owner and proprietor of Harrison Aire, is an FAA-licensed pilot and aircraft mechanic. After a twenty-three year career at Eastern Airlines, he retired in 1973 to launch the Harrison Aire enterprise from an airstrip in central New Jersey. The company owns and operates several hot air balloons which it charters for recreational day trips over the New Jersey countryside. Since the mid 1990s, the business has suffered cash-flow problems. Harrison Aire blames its losses, in part, on the prohibitive expense of replacement balloon fabric, which it contends is a result of Raven/Aerostar's monopolization of the relevant balloon fabric aftermarket.
Raven Industries is a diversified manufacturing company based in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. From the 1970s through 1986, it manufactured hot air balloons and replacement balloon fabric. In 1986, Raven formed Aerostar International as a wholly-owned subsidiary to take over its balloon business. Aerostar International manufactures and sells hot air balloons in a market of at least five competitors and also produces and sells replacement balloon fabric.
Hot air balloons are regulated from cradle to grave by the Federal Aviation Administration. The FAA certifies balloon design and manufacturing standards, 14 C.F.R. § 21.11-53, requires the manufacturer to provide a maintenance manual along with its aircraft, id. § 21.50, reviews the content of the regulations bear on this appeal.the content of the manual, id. § 31.82, and certifies replacement part designs for airworthiness, id. 21.303. The FAA's "maintenance manual" and "replacement part" regulations bear on this appeal.
Balloon manufacturers are required to provide their customers with a balloon maintenance manual, known as an "ICA" (Instructions for Continued Airworthiness), which sets forth recommended and required maintenance procedures. The manual is in two parts. The first, known as the "FAA accepted" section, establishes manufacturer-recommended but not FAA-required protocols. The second, known as the "Airworthiness Limitation Section," establishes FAA requirements affecting flight safety.
Regulations also govern the manufacture and sale of replacement balloon parts, including replacement fabric. All replacement parts must be "of such a quality" that the repaired balloon is "at least equal to its original or properly altered condition." 14 C.F.R. § 43.13(b). The FAA authorizes third-party manufacturers to sell aftermarket parts, including replacement fabric, provided they first obtain FAA certification that the product is equal to or better than the original. Id. § 21.303.
Replacement fabric extends the service life of a hot air balloon. The top half of the balloon "envelope"—the material encapsulating the hot air—tends to deteriorate more rapidly than the bottom half. By replacing top-half fabric after 300 to 500 hours of use, balloon owners are able to extend the aircraft's service life for an additional 200 to 300 hours. Generally, it is more economical to replace fabric in this manner than to purchase an entirely new envelope. Harrison Aire followed this practice in maintaining its fleet of Raven/Aerostar balloons.
Harrison Aire purchased its first Raven balloon in 1978. The parties' dispute over fabric replacement began shortly thereafter. According to Terry Harrison, Raven advised him that he could not purchase replacement fabric from other manufacturers because installation of third-party fabric would render the balloon unairworthy. In 1982, Raven revised its balloon maintenance manuals to make this policy explicit, warning Raven balloon owners that This language appeared in the FAA-approved, rather than the FAA-required, section of Raven maintenance manuals. Reading the manual in the light most favorable to Harrison Aire, it warned that only Raven-brand fabric should be used in Raven balloons.
Terry Harrison repeatedly complained to Raven, believing its insertion of the "warning" into the balloon manual transformed the fabric policy into an FAA requirement that legally barred him from obtaining cheaper fabric elsewhere. On several occasions between 1982 and 1986, Harrison confronted Raven representatives about the manual language, but was told that no other aftermarket product was equal to or better than Raven fabric, and that only Raven fabric was consistent with airworthiness standards. Harrison understood this as a representation that he was required to purchase Raven fabric in order to comply with the FAA's "equal to or better" standard for replacement parts. Harrison Aire contends that from 1978 to 1986, Raven misled the company into believing the purchase of Raven fabric was mandated by law, when in fact it was merely recommended by the manufacturer.
In February 1986, Raven Industries formed Aerostar International to take over its hot air balloon business. Aerostar continued Raven's balloon operation essentially uninterrupted, and became the new focus of Harrison Aire's campaign to purchase fabric from third-party sources. Shortly after Aerostar was incorporated, Harrison registered several complaints with Aerostar about "being forced" to use Raven/Aerostar fabric. Nevertheless, despite its understanding that Aerostar balloons required Aerostar replacement fabric, Harrison Aire purchased a "big ride" Aerostar balloon in 1986 that is the subject of this litigation.
By 1995, Harrison Aire's "big ride" Aerostar balloon required a major fabric replacement. By this time, two other manufacturers had received FAA approval to produce aftermarket fabric for Aerostar balloons. See 14 C.F.R. § 21.303 (). Harrison investigated one of the approved sellers, Custom Nine Designs, but decided against purchasing their fabric because of concerns that it lacked quality. Harrison never contacted the other approved supplier, Head Balloons. Viewing Aerostar-brand fabric as its only option and as prohibitively expensive, Harrison Aire retired the "big ride" balloon in 1996 rather than repairing it.
Harrison eventually realized that installation of third-party fabric was legally permissible. In July 2000, following an administrative proceeding between the FAA and a third-party balloon repair service, an Administrative Law Judge concluded the fabric "warning" found in Aerostar's maintenance manual was not legally binding. In re Braden's Balloons Aloft, Inc., FAA No. CP99SWO037 (July 26, 2000). Harrison contends the Braden's decision provided him notice, for the first time, that his company was not required to purchase Aerostar-brand fabric.
In March 2002, Harrison Aire filed suit in federal court, alleging, inter alia, antitrust injury arising from Raven/Aerostar's monopolization of the aftermarket for replacement Aerostar balloon fabric and from the unlawful tying of Aerostar-brand fabric to Aerostar balloons. But for Raven/Aerostar's allegedly misleading and exclusionary aftermarket fabric policy, Harrison Aire contends that its "big ride" balloon would have been repaired in 1996 and still operational. The District Court granted summary judgment to defendants, holding they lacked sufficient market power in the relevant product market. Harrison Aire, Inc. v. Aerostar Int'l, Inc., 316 F.Supp.2d 186 (E.D.Pa.2004).1
The District Court had jurisdiction under the federal antitrust laws, 15 U.S.C. § 15 (), and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our summary judgment standard of review is plenary. In re Flat Glass Antitrust Litig., 385 F.3d 350, 357 (3d Cir.2004) ().
Significantly, however, "antitrust law limits the range of permissible inferences" that can be drawn "from ambiguous evidence." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 588, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); see also Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Serv. Corp., 465 U.S. 752, 764, 104 S.Ct. 1464, 79 L.Ed.2d 775 (1984). To avoid deterring pro-competitive behavior, "certain inferences may not be drawn from circumstantial evidence in an antitrust case." In re Flat Glass Antitrust Litig., 385 F.3d at 357 (quoting InterVest, Inc. v. Bloomberg, L.P., 340 F.3d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc.
...2 ]."), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa County , 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) ; see also Harrison Aire, Inc. v. Aerostar Int'l, Inc. , 423 F.3d 374, 381 (3d Cir. 2005) ; Geneva Pharmas. Tech. Corp. v. Barr Lab'ys Inc. , 386 F.3d 485, 500 (2d Cir. 2004) ; Blue Cross & Blue Sh......
-
Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.
...without causing competing firms to expand output and drive down prices, that firm has monopoly power. Harrison Aire, Inc. v. Aerostar Int'l, Inc., 423 F.3d 374, 380 (3d Cir.2005). The existence of monopoly power may be proven through direct evidence of supracompetitive prices and restricted......
-
Authenticom, Inc. v. CDK Global, LLC (In re Dealer Mgmt. Sys. Antitrust Litig.)
...But a change in aftermarket practices is not the sole worry of Eastman Kodak and its progeny. See Harrison Aire, Inc. v. Aerostar Int'l, Inc. , 423 F.3d 374, 384 (3d Cir. 2005) ("an ‘aftermarket policy change’ is not the sine qua non of a Kodak claim"). Rather, as explained, the Supreme Cou......
-
Untracht v. Fikri
...`antitrust law limits the range of permissible inferences' that can be drawn `from ambiguous evidence.'" Harrison Aire, Inc. v. Aerostar Int'l, Inc., 423 F.3d 374, 380 (3d Cir.2005) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 588, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538......
-
Basic Antitrust Concepts and Principles
...protect that market.”); Heerwagen v. Clear Channel Comme’ns, 435 F.3d 219, 227 (2d Cir. 2006); Harvison Aire, Inc. v. Aerostar Int’l, 423 F.3d 374, 381 (3d Cir. 2005); Arani TriHealth, Inc., 77 F. App’x 823, 826 (6th Cir. 2003). 202. See, ag., duPont, 351 U.S. at 391 (75% share); Zastman Ko......
-
Table of Cases
...162 (3d Cir. 2015), 313 Harris Custom Builders v. Hoffmeyer, 834 F. Supp. 256 (N.D. Ill. 1993), 311 Harrison Aire, Inc. v. Aerostar Int’l, 423 F.3d 374 (3d Cir. 2005), 158, 171 Haskell v. Time, Inc., 857 F. Supp. 1392 (E.D. Cal. 1994), 122 Heerwagen v. Clear Channel Commc’ns, 435 F.3d 219 (......
-
Patents
...see also Rebel Oil Co., Inc. v. Atl. Richfield Co., 51 F.3d 1421, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995); Harrison Aire, Inc. v. Aerostar Int’l, Inc., 423 F.3d 374, 380-81 (3d Cir. 2005). 3. NCAA v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Okla., 468 U.S. 81, 109 n.38 (1984); Jefferson Parish Hosp. Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde......
-
Market Definition
...yet emerged. 6 5. SmithKline Corp. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 575 F.2d 1056, 1063 (3d Cir. 1978); see also Harrison Aire, Inc. v. Aerostar Int’l, 423 F.3d 374, 383 (3d Cir. 2005); Spanish Broad. Sys. v. Clear Channel Commc’ns, 376 F.3d 1065, 1074 (11th Cir. 2004). Similarly, in the Merger Guidelin......