Abcor Corp. v. AM International, Inc.

AM International, Inc. (AM) (defendant) manufactured and serviced Multigraphics printing equipment. In 1973 James Kibler, a technician at AM, left AM to form his own company, Abcor Corp. (plaintiff). Abcor provided maintenance and repairs for AM machines in Washington, D.C. Of the 800 Multigraphics machines serviced by companies in D.C., Abcor serviced 400 and AM serviced 200. In 1987 AM considered purchasing Abcor. Instead of going through with this, AM decided to compete for a larger share of the repair market. In explaining this decision to Kibler, an AM manager said that AM had decided to acquire Abcor’s business through competition. Abcor filed a lawsuit in federal district court against AM, alleging that AM had attempted to monopolize the Multigraphics repair market in Washington, D.C., in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act. Abcor argued that the AM manager’s statement to Kibler demonstrated AM’s intention to monopolize the Multigraphics repair market. To further support its claims, Abcor presented evidence that AM had engaged in a series of anticompetitive activities to destroy Abcor’s business. Among the anticompetitive activities Abcor alleged were AM’s reducing its prices, soliciting business from Abcor’s customers, refusing to sell certain repair parts to Abcor, and hiring former Abcor employees. AM filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Abcor failed to produce evidence to support its claims. The district court granted summary judgment, concluding that AM did not have the specific intent to destroy competition or create a monopoly in the Multigraphics repair market.