Snow v. Align Technology, Inc.

Background

Plaintiffs brought claims against Align Technology, Inc. under Section 2 of the Sherman Act and related state laws. The Section 2 claim alleged that Align monopolized the market for in-office clear aligners. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief under Section 2 on behalf of a nationwide class and damages under state laws on behalf of classes from Arizona, California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, and Oregon.

Plaintiffs also brought a separate Section 1 Sherman Act claim. That claim alleged that Align conspired with SmileDirectClub to allocate the market for direct-to-consumer clear aligners. The Section 1 claim sought relief on behalf of a purported class of direct purchasers of SmileDirectClub treatment.

Earlier ruling and request for partial final judgment

On February 21, 2024, the court granted summary judgment for Align on the Section 2 claim and related state-law claims. Summary judgment is a ruling that resolves a claim without a trial when the court determines that the applicable legal standard is satisfied based on the record.

The February ruling did not affect the separate Section 1 claim, which remained pending. The opinion states that the two groups of claims involved separate allegations, discovery, facts, requested relief, classes, expert analysis, class-certification briefing, and summary-judgment briefing. The Section 1 claim was proceeding on a separate schedule, with separate briefing and trial dates.

The parties jointly asked the court to enter final judgment on the resolved Section 2 and related state-law claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). That rule permits final judgment on fewer than all claims when the court expressly finds that there is no just reason to delay.

Court’s ruling

The court found that its summary-judgment ruling was an ultimate disposition and therefore a final judgment on the Section 2 claim for purposes of Rule 54(b). It also found no risk of unnecessary appellate review because the Section 2 and Section 1 claims were separate, distinct, and independent. The court determined that an appeal concerning the Section 2 claim would not be made moot by further proceedings on the Section 1 claim and would not require an appellate court to decide the same issues more than once.

The court further stated that entering judgment would conserve judicial resources and streamline the litigation by allowing plaintiffs to pursue an appeal on the same schedule as plaintiffs in a related case whose Section 2 claim had been resolved by an identical summary-judgment order. The opinion notes that those plaintiffs had filed a notice of appeal on March 19, 2024.

Judge Vince Chhabria granted the joint stipulated request and entered final judgment on plaintiffs’ Section 2 Sherman Act claim and related state-law claims. The Section 1 Sherman Act claim remained before the court.