Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Case 16.3
KOLON INDUSTRIES INC. V. E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
748 F.3d 160: 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6161 [April 3, 2014]
FACTS:
DuPont invented para-aramid fiber in 1965, which it sells under the trademark Kevlar. ®
Such fibers are useful in making body armor, fiber optic cables, and other applications.
Although once the exclusive supplier of para-aramid fiber in the United States, DuPont has shared
the market with other companies since 1987 and now has about a 55% share.
Kolon wanted to break into the para-aramid fiber market in 2005 but had little success.
Kolon alleged that DuPont’s restrictive multi-year supply agreements with customers prevented
competitors from gaining market share.
According to Kolon, DuPont used its market dominance in concert with the restrictive agreements
to maintain or attempt to maintain a monopoly in para-aramid fiber.
PROCEDURE: The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee, DuPont.
ISSUE: Did DuPont illegally monopolize or attempt to monopolize the U.S. para-aramid market through
its supply agreements in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act?
RULE: “Under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, a defendant is liable for a monopolization claim when that
defendant (1) possesses monopoly power and (2) willfully acquires or maintains that power.”
“Monopoly power is the power to control prices or exclude competition.”
“To prevail in an attempted monopolization claim under Section 2, a claimant must show (1) a specific
intent to monopolize a relevant market, (2) predatory or anticompetitive acts, and (3) a dangerous
probability of successful monopolization.”
REASONING:
1. Although there is no fixed percentage market share that conclusively resolves whether monopoly
power exists, the Supreme Court has never found a party with less than 75% market share to have
monopoly power.
2. Kolon’s own expert stated that DuPont had a maximum market share of 59% during the relevant
time period, and that DuPont’s market share decreased to 55% during that three-year period
5. A showing of DuPont’s “market power” is not itself sufficient to prove that DuPont possesses
“monopoly power.” Kolon failed to show what “proportionate volume of commerce” in the entire
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Exclusive dealing arrangements are not always illegal. The key question is whether they foreclose a
substantial portion of the market.
Three para-aramid producers—DuPont, Teijin Aramid (formerly a division of the Dutch company
Akzo N.V.), and Kolon—sell their para-aramid fibers to U.S. consumers. The U.S. para-aramid
