A franchisee brought action against franchisor alleging violation of the
Sherman Act and Robinson-Patman Act (RPA). The franchisor counterclaimed alleging
misappropriation of trade secrets. The United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Ronald L. Buckwalter, J., 2005 WL 724117 and
2006 WL 2385519, granted judgment for the franchisor. Franchisee appealed.

Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Jordan, Circuit Judge, held that:

(1) whether dealers entered into horizontal agreement among themselves to not
compete was jury question;

(2) evidence of events before limitations period was admissible to establish
existence of antitrust conspiracy during limitations period;

(3) whether manufacturer entered into vertical competition-restricting agreement
with its dealers was jury question;

(4) rule of reason, not per se analysis, applied to vertical restraint of trade
claim;

(5) whether vertical agreement between truck manufacturer and some of its
dealers existed was jury question;

(6) two-sales requirement under RPA had not been satisfied by single sale of
customized good via competitive bidding process, and

(7) Pennsylvania's "gist of the action" doctrine did not apply to franchisor's
claim that franchisee misappropriated its trade secrets.

Affirmed in part and vacated in part.