## Facts

- The United States sued Dentsply International, Inc., a manufacturer of prefabricated artificial teeth, alleging antitrust violations based on Dentsply’s dealer distribution policies.
- The court found the relevant product market to be the sale of prefabricated artificial teeth in the United States.
- Artificial teeth were sold in porcelain or plastic across many shades and molds, and were commonly categorized by quality (premium, mid-line, economy, sub-economy).
- Dentsply had a high and stable market share (described in the record as roughly 75–80%).
- Artificial teeth were distributed through (1) dental supply dealers, (2) direct sales from manufacturers to dental laboratories, and (3) hybrid arrangements.
- Dentsply sold artificial teeth exclusively through a limited network of dental dealers (about 23), rather than directly to dental laboratories.
- Competitors were generally smaller (often foreign-based) and many sold directly to dental laboratories rather than through dealers.
- The challenged practice was “Dealer Criterion 6,” under which dealers risked losing the Dentsply line if they added competing tooth lines; new dealers could be required to drop some or all competing lines to obtain Dentsply’s account.
- Dealers could retain (“grandfather”) competing tooth brands they already carried before the policy’s enforcement.
- The government relied in part on internal documents suggesting the policy sought to keep rivals out of key dealer outlets; Dentsply monitored compliance and sometimes terminated or conditioned relationships based on the policy.

## Issues

1. Whether Dentsply unlawfully maintained monopoly power in the U.S. prefabricated artificial teeth market through exclusionary dealer arrangements, in violation of Sherman Act § 2.
2. Whether Dentsply’s dealer policies unreasonably restrained trade, in violation of Sherman Act § 1.
3. Whether Dealer Criterion 6 constituted unlawful exclusive dealing that may substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly, in violation of Clayton Act § 3.
4. Whether Dentsply’s dealer network and policies foreclosed a substantial share of effective distribution opportunities to rivals.

## Decision

- After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for Dentsply on all counts.
- The court held there was no unlawful monopolization or monopoly maintenance under Sherman Act § 2.
- The court held there was no unreasonable restraint of trade under Sherman Act § 1.
- The court held there was no unlawful exclusive dealing under Clayton Act § 3 because the government failed to prove substantial foreclosure of competition.
- The court denied the government’s request for injunctive relief.

## Legal Principles

- A high market share is relevant but not alone sufficient to establish unlawful monopoly maintenance; the analysis turns on whether conduct is exclusionary in a way that materially restricts competitive opportunities.
- Exclusive dealing is assessed by the practical degree of foreclosure in the market, including the availability and effectiveness of alternative channels through which rivals can reach customers.
- The existence of nonexclusive options—such as rivals’ ability to sell through nondefendant dealers or directly to customers—can defeat a claim that the defendant foreclosed a substantial share of the market.
- Stated anticompetitive intent in internal communications is not dispositive if the market evidence does not show substantial exclusion or anticompetitive effect.
- Where the evidence does not establish substantial foreclosure under Clayton Act § 3, the same distribution practice may be found insufficiently exclusionary to support Sherman Act § 2 liability on that theory.

## Conclusion

The district court found that Dentsply’s dealer exclusivity policy constrained some dealers but did not substantially foreclose rivals from effective access to customers because alternative dealers and direct sales to dental laboratories remained available; accordingly, the court rejected the government’s claims under Sherman Act §§ 1–2 and Clayton Act § 3 and entered judgment for Dentsply.


United States v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc., 277 F. Supp. 2d 387 (D. Del. 2003)