ALIVECOR, INC., Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., Defendant., 592 F. Supp. 3d 904

Summary

HOLDINGS: [1]-In a case involving an alleged monopolization in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act, the court found that plaintiff's allegations plausibly established that defendant's conduct was anticompetitive because plaintiff's allegations presented the type of associated conduct that made product design changes cognizable under antitrust law where defendant made changes that prevented third parties from identifying irregular heart rate situations and from offering competing heart rate analysis apps.