Optronic Technologies, Inc. v. Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co. Ltd., No. 20-15837 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Orion sued, alleging that Sunny violated federal antitrust law and California laws by conspiring with its horizontal competitor Synta to fix prices and allocate the telescope market. A jury awarded Orion $16.8 million.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part. The district court properly admitted the expert report and testimony of Orion’s telescope manufacturing and damages experts and properly excluded Sunny's rebuttal expert testimony. On the Sherman Act section 1 claims, sufficient evidence established that Sunny conspired with Synta to ensure that Sunny acquired another telescope manufacturer, to protect their market share; conspired with a competitor to fix prices or credit terms; and agreed with Synta either not to compete or to divide customers. The evidence also supported the Sherman Act section 2 verdict on attempted monopolization and conspiracy to monopolize; the verdict did not depend on an improper joint monopoly theory. Orion sufficiently defined the relevant market; sufficient evidence supported findings that Sunny expressed a specific intent to gain monopoly power and was dangerously close to attaining monopoly power.
Affirming as to Orion’s Clayton Act section 7 claim, the court upheld the finding of a reasonable likelihood that Sunny’s acquisition of a competitor would substantially reduce competition or create a monopoly. The jury’s finding as to damages was neither grossly excessive unsupported, nor the result of guesswork. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing injunctive relief under Clayton Act section 16. Vacating in part, the court held that the district court abused its discretion by excluding a declaration in support of Sunny’s motion to amend the judgment with regard to the valuation of a settlement set-off.
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Court Description: Antitrust. The panel affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court’s judgment, after a jury trial, in favor of Optronic Technologies, Inc., also known as Orion Telescopes & Binoculars, in Orion’s lawsuit alleging that Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co. Ltd. and Sunny Optics, Inc., violated federal antitrust law and California laws. Orion alleged that Sunny conspired with Suzhou Synta Optical Technology Co. Ltd. and other “Synta Entities” to fix prices and allocate the telescope market. The panel held that the district court properly admitted the expert report and testimony of Drs. Jose Sasian and J. Douglas Zona, Orion’s telescope manufacturing expert and damages expert, and properly excluded the testimony of Jeffrey Redman, a rebuttal expert for Sunny. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by giving the jury a mid-trial curative instruction limiting the scope of the testimony of Dr. Celeste Saravia, a rebuttal expert on damages. The panel held that Orion presented sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict in Orion’s favor on its Sherman Act § 1 claims. First, sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict that Sunny conspired with horizontal competitor Synta to ensure that Sunny acquired Meade 4 OPTRONIC TECH. V. NINGBO SUNNY ELEC. Instruments Corp., another telescope manufacturer, to protect their market share and guarantee that competitor Jinghua Optics & Electronics would not buy Meade. Second, sufficient evidence supported the jury’s alternative findings that Sunny conspired with a competitor to fix prices or credit terms in violation of § 1. Third, sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict that Sunny agreed with Synta, a horizontal competitor, either not to compete with one another in the market, or to divide customers or potential customers between them. The panel held that the evidence supported the jury’s verdict for Orion on its Sherman Act § 2 claims of attempted monopolization and conspiracy to monopolize the global telescope manufacturing market. The panel concluded that the jury’s verdict imposing § 2 liability did not depend on an improper joint monopoly theory. The panel held that Orion sufficiently defined the relevant market through expert testimony by Dr. Zona. In addition, sufficient evidence supported the jury’s findings that Sunny expressed a specific intent to gain monopoly power and was dangerously close to attaining monopoly power. The panel affirmed the jury’s verdict for Orion on its Clayton Act § 7 claim, based on the jury’s finding of a reasonable likelihood that Sunny’s acquisition of Meade would substantially reduce competition in the telescope manufacturing market or create a monopoly. The panel held that Sunny was not entitled to a new trial on the issue of § 7 liability because Orion presented evidence of antitrust injury, and the jury’s finding as to damages was neither grossly excessive unsupported, nor the result of guesswork. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing injunctive relief against Sunny under Clayton Act § 16. OPTRONIC TECH. V. NINGBO SUNNY ELEC. 5 The panel held that Orion offered substantial evidence in support of the district court’s finding that the conspiracy between Sunny and Synta continued post 2016, and Sunny was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of whether Orion was entitled to post-September 2016 damages. Vacating in part, the panel held that the district court abused its discretion by excluding under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and 37 the declaration that Dr. Saravia gave in support of Sunny’s motion to alter or amend the judgment with regard to the valuation of a settlement set-off. The panel remanded for further proceedings. On Orion’s cross-appeal, the panel affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Sunny on the issue of whether Sunny caused Orion’s failure to acquire Meade. 6 OPTRONIC TECH. V. NINGBO SUNNY ELEC.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.