RESPONDENT: Image Technical Services, Inc., et al.
LOCATION: Residence of Jacobson
DOCKET NO.: 90-1029
DECIDED BY: Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
CITATION: 504 US 451 (1992)
ARGUED: Dec 10, 1991
DECIDED: Jun 08, 1992
Donn P. Pickett - on behalf of the Petitioner
James A. Hennefer - on behalf of the Respondents
James F. Rill - as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioner
Facts of the case
Media for Eastman Kodak Company v. Image Technical Services., Inc.Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - December 10, 1991 in Eastman Kodak Company v. Image Technical Services., Inc.
Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - June 08, 1992 in Eastman Kodak Company v. Image Technical Services., Inc.
William H. Rehnquist:
The opinion of the Court in No. 90-1029, Eastman Kodak Company against Image Technical Services, Inc. will be announced by Justice Blackmun.
Harry A. Blackmun:
This litigation which comes to us from the Ninth Circuit is an anti-trust case.
The respondents brought this lawsuit alleging that Kodak unlawfully had tied the sale of service for its machines to the sale of parts in violation of Section One of the Sherman Act, and had monopolized the sale of service in parts for those machines in violation of Section 2 of that Act.
The District Court granted summary judgment for Kodak but the Court of Appeals reversed.
It ruled that the plaintiffs had presented enough evidence to raise a genuine issue concerning Kodak's market power in the service and parts markets.
It also rejected Kodak's contention that lack of market power in service and parts must be assumed when such power is absent in the equipment market.
In an opinion filed with the Clerk today, we affirm that judgment.
We rule that Kodak has not met the requirements of the rules of civil procedure for an award of summary judgment on the Section 1 claim, and we also hold that plaintiffs have presented genuine issues per trial as to whether Kodak had monopolized the service and parts market in violation of Section 2.
Justice Scalia has filed a dissenting opinion and is joined therein by Justices O'Connor and Thomas.