In this post-trial opinion, Judge Robinson denied defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. The jury determined that defendant violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and Section 3 of the Clayton Act. Plaintiff and defendant were rival manufacturers of Class 8 commercial truck transmissions. Plaintiff alleged that defendant excluded it from the marketplace for such transmissions by entering into long-term agreements (“LTAs”) with truck manufacturers, which had the effect of depriving consumers of their ability to select plaintiff’s transmissions in trucks they ordered. Defendant contended that there was insufficient evidence that its conduct was anti-competitive, because discounts included in the LTAs resulted in lower prices. Rejecting this argument, the court noted that “obtaining the absolute lowest price is not always antitrust's goal,” 2011 WL 843928, at *4, and concluded “there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that defendant had foreclosed the market to competition by tying discounts to market penetration goals in its LTAs ….” Id. In support of the jury’s verdict, the court observed that the LTAs were long-term contracts lasting from five to seven years, and required the truck manufacturers to purchase 80 percent or more of their transmissions from defendant or risk losing the right to purchase any transmissions from defendant. The court also ruled that in order to establish an unlawful conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, it was unnecessary to show that both defendant and the truck manufacturers desired to obtain an illegal objective. It was sufficient to satisfy the “common scheme” requirements of Section 1 that the truck manufacturers “entered into the LTAs with the intention of obtaining the lowest price for defendant's transmissions.” Id. at *10.