## Facts

- Itek Corporation manufactured graphic arts equipment and supplies and sold products nationally through a dual distribution system: company-owned branches and independent distributors.
- Graphic Products Distributors, Inc. (GPD) was an independent distributor of Itek products and related services.
- Itek imposed nonprice vertical restraints on independent distributors, including territorial limits and restrictions on customer classes.
- Itek’s company-owned branches competed with independent distributors while the restraints limited distributors’ ability to sell outside assigned territories or to certain customers.
- GPD claimed these practices unreasonably restrained trade and harmed GPD’s business, and sought treble damages under federal antitrust law.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence supported a finding that Itek’s dual distribution system and nonprice territorial/customer restrictions were an unreasonable restraint of trade under § 1 of the Sherman Act.
2. Whether GPD’s damages proof was sufficiently supported and non-speculative to sustain a jury award under § 4 of the Clayton Act.
3. Whether the district court’s jury instructions misstated the governing antitrust standards and required a new trial.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the judgment for GPD.
- The court held there was sufficient evidence to submit liability to the jury under rule-of-reason analysis of nonprice vertical restraints in a dual distribution context.
- The court held the evidence permitted the jury to find antitrust injury and to approximate damages; lack of mathematical precision did not require reversal.
- The court rejected Itek’s challenge to the jury instructions, concluding the charge as a whole adequately stated the law and did not cause prejudicial error.
- The district court properly denied Itek’s motions for directed verdict, JNOV, and new trial.

## Legal Principles

- Nonprice vertical restraints, including territorial and customer restrictions, are generally evaluated under the rule of reason rather than per se illegality.
- In dual distribution arrangements (manufacturer selling through independent dealers while also distributing directly), competitive effects are fact-dependent and commonly present jury questions.
- On appellate review of a jury verdict, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict; the court does not reweigh evidence or reassess credibility.
- Antitrust plaintiffs must prove the fact of injury; once injury is shown, damages may be estimated by reasonable inference and need not be exact, though they cannot be purely speculative.
- Alleged errors in jury instructions warrant reversal only if the instructions, read as a whole, misstate the law in a way that likely affected the verdict.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit upheld a jury finding that Itek’s implementation of nonprice restraints within a dual distribution system could be found unreasonable under § 1, affirmed the damages award as adequately supported, and found no reversible error in the antitrust jury instructions.


Graphic Prods. Distribs., Inc. v. Itek Corp., 717 F.2d 1560 (11th Cir. 1983)