## Facts

- Continental Ore Company entered the vanadium-ore and ferrovanadium business in a market dominated by Union Carbide & Carbon Corporation and Vanadium Corporation of America.
- During World War II, the Canadian government centralized vanadium purchasing and appointed a Carbide subsidiary, Electro Metallurgical Company of Canada, Ltd. (Electro Met), as the exclusive purchasing agent for the Canadian Office of Metals Controller.
- Continental alleged an integrated scheme by Carbide, Vanadium Corporation of America, and affiliates to restrain trade, monopolize, and attempt and conspire to monopolize commerce in vanadium oxide and ferrovanadium.
- Continental further alleged that defendants used Electro Met’s purchasing position to exclude Continental from the Canadian vanadium market and divert that business to defendants, as part of the overall scheme affecting U.S. commerce.
- Continental sought treble damages under Clayton Act § 4 for alleged violations of Sherman Act §§ 1 and 2.
- At trial, the district court excluded Continental’s offer of proof concerning exclusion from the Canadian market on the theory that Electro Met’s conduct, as purchasing agent for Canada, was outside the Sherman Act and not proper evidence.
- The jury returned a verdict for defendants, and judgment was entered for defendants.
- The court of appeals affirmed, concluding the evidence was insufficient to show defendants’ conduct caused Continental’s injury and that a directed verdict would have been proper.

## Issues

1. Whether the court of appeals applied the correct standard when reviewing the sufficiency of evidence and causation, including whether it failed to view the record in the light most favorable to Continental.
2. Whether the district court erred by excluding evidence that Electro Met excluded Continental from the Canadian market on the ground that Electro Met acted as an arm of the Canadian government.
3. Whether other trial rulings and instructions improperly limited the jury’s consideration of the alleged conspiracy.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial.
- The court of appeals erred by not viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Continental and by failing to give Continental the benefit of reasonable inferences.
- The court of appeals improperly treated the evidence in isolated fragments rather than evaluating the alleged conspiracy as an integrated course of conduct.
- The district court erred in excluding Continental’s offer of proof regarding Canadian-market exclusion; the evidence was relevant to the alleged Sherman Act violations and not inadmissible merely because Electro Met served a governmental purchasing role.
- The Court indicated additional evidentiary and instructional errors should not be repeated on remand.

## Legal Principles

- In assessing whether a case should go to the jury, courts must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.
- Antitrust conspiracy proof must be evaluated as a whole; courts should not compartmentalize events and reject the claim by treating each component as independently insufficient.
- Where the record permits a reasonable inference of conspiracy and causation, those fact questions are for the jury, not for appellate reweighing under sufficiency review.
- Conduct occurring in a foreign market may be admissible as evidence of a domestic antitrust conspiracy when it bears on the alleged restraint or monopolization of U.S. commerce, even if the conduct was intertwined with a foreign government purchasing program.
- Excluding relevant proof that tends to show the scope and operation of an alleged conspiracy can warrant a new trial when it prevents the jury from considering the full pattern of conduct.

## Conclusion

The Court ordered a new trial because the lower courts failed to apply the correct sufficiency standard and improperly excluded relevant evidence tied to an alleged integrated conspiracy; antitrust claims must be assessed on the full record with disputed inferences left to the jury.


Continental Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., 370 U.S. 690 (1962)