Granting defendant company’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s antitrust claim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, a California federal direct court held that plaintiff lacked standing to bring its claims. The Court explained that a plaintiff has no standing to assert that he paid inflated prices for a product as a result of the defendants’ monopoly activities in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, unless (i) he purchased the product directly from the defendants, or (ii) one of the limited exceptions to the so-called “direct purchaser” rule applied. Here, plaintiff admitted that it was not a direct purchaser from defendant but argued that it should have standing based on a purported conspiracy between the defendants. The Court rejected this argument. After questioning whether a “conspiracy exception” to the direct purchaser rule should be recognized as a valid means to establish standing, the Court ruled that the plaintiff’s inability to sue all of the alleged co-conspirators – as required by prior decisions recognizing a “conspiracy exception” – would, in any event render the exception unavailable. (In re XL Ditropan Xl Antitrust Litigation., 2007 WL 2978329 (N.D.Cal. Oct. 11, 2007))