Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—D.N.J.: Rebooted suit alleging unfair competition in the bunion device market stumbles again, (Jul 14, 2026)

By Justin Marcus Smith, J.D.

The plaintiff provided “no concrete factual assertions” that anticompetitive conduct caused a price increase, a decrease in quantity, or a decrease in quality.

Conclusory assertions pertained only to harm that antitrust plaintiff Treace Medical Concepts, Inc. (Treace) allegedly suffered, not to reduced consumer choice generally, held the federal district court in Newark, New Jersey, in ordering dismissal of a first amended complaint (FAC) complaint against Stryker Corp. (Stryker). More or less as the court had decided on Stryker’s earlier motion to dismiss, Treace failed to perfect facial standing. Having dismissed the Treace antitrust claims, the court dismissed its tortious interference claim because it depended entirely on the dismissed antitrust claim and the same underlying allegations of anticompetitive conduct. The court dismissal of all 16 Treace claims was without prejudice (Treace Medical Concepts, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., No. 2:24-cv-09763-JKS-MAH (D.N.J. Jul. 13, 2026)).

Background. Plaintiff Treace is a medical technology company that developed the Lapiplasty® 3D Bunion Correction System. Stryker manufactures two similar products at issue in this case: the LapiFuse System and the PROstep® Lapidus System. Stryker is thought to be dominant in trauma products.

Treace alleged that Stryker has been: (1) forcing hospitals to accept Stryker’s tarsal-metatarsal (TMT) bunion correction systems (TMT bunion systems) bundled within the Stryker trauma service line; and (2) that Styker engaged in de facto tying by structuring its bundled service line rebates.

The initial Treace complaint asserted twelve counts of patent infringement and four counts of federal and state antitrust violations: one claim each under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 3 of the Clayton Act; one claim for unlawful restraint of trade under the New Jersey Antitrust Act; and one claim for unlawful interference with prospective economic advantage.

In late 2025, the federal district court in New Jersey agreed with Stryker that Treace lacked standing and failed to state antitrust injury. The court granted Stryker’s motion to dismiss most claims of the initial Treace complaint on October 2, 2025, but Treace filed a first amended complaint (FAC) by October 24, 2025.

The FAC asserted a total of 16 claims, including twelve patent infringement claims; a claim for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; a claim for violation of Section 3 of the Clayton Act; unlawful restraint of trade in violation of the New Jersey Antitrust Act (NJAA); and unlawful interference with prospective economic advantage.

Stryker and its subsidiary, Wright Medical Technology, Inc. (Wright; collectively, Stryker), again moved for dismissal for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The court accepted all factual allegations as true for purposes of deciding the motion.

Antitrust standing. The court dismissed the FAC because it did not show facial antitrust injury. Stryker argued Treace did not allege a decrease in competition, except in a conclusory fashion, and also did not show the remaining elements of antitrust standing. Treace countered that Stryker engaged in anticompetitive practices that reduced consumer choice, harmed product quality, and increased prices. Treace also argued its allegations about harm to competition were not conclusory and that it satisfied the remaining elements of antitrust standing.

The court determined the FAC still failed to plead specific facts about harm to competition in the TMT bunion systems market from alleged bundling of Stryker TMT bunion systems with the Stryker Trauma Service Line. The court quoted six examples of conclusory statements as drawn from the FAC. The court said Treace provided “no concrete factual assertions” that Stryker conduct caused a price increase, a decrease in quantity, or a decrease in the quality of TMT bunion systems in the TMT bunion system market. To illustrate the deficiency, the court cited to a counterexample of a plaintiff that pleaded injury both to itself and to the market by referring to market share and revenue reductions in specific years in conjunction with contemporaneous market price increases for magnesite. In the instant matter, Treace only pleaded with particularity as pertinent to its own welfare. It did not allege harm to the broader market. The court acknowledged here that reduced consumer choice is market harm, but the court construed the instant FAC as pleading consumer choice concerns that pertained only to harm to Treace and its own product, not to any “limitation of consumer choice” in the broader TMT bunion system market.

Tortious interference. Having dismissed the federal and state antitrust claims, the court also dismissed the Treace state tortious interference claim, without prejudice. Here, Stryker argued the tortious interference claim failed because the same underlying conduct was coextensive with the antitrust allegations. Stryker also argued failure to allege a protectable relationship or expectancy. Treace countered that the anticompetitive scheme it alleged showed intentional and malicious interference. Treace also argued it sufficiently alleged a protectable relationship or expectancy.

The court noted that antitrust and tortious interference claims might be based on separate facts, but that was not the case here. The only improper conduct Treace alleged was anticompetitive activity. This included, among other things, purported targeting of integrated delivery networks (IDNs) where surgeons were using the Treace Lapiplasty System or where Treace had contacts or was bidding on contracts. The court dismissed the tortious interference count to the extent it wholly depended on the dismissed claim of antitrust conduct.

The Case is No. 2:24-cv-09763-JKS-MAH.

Judge: Semper, J.

Attorneys: Rebekah R. Conroy (Stone Conroy LLC) for Treace Medical Concepts, Inc. Katelyn O'Reilly (Walsh Pizzi O'Reilly Falanga LLP) for Stryker Corp. and Wright Medical Group, Inc.

Companies: Treace Medical Concepts, Inc.; Stryker Corp.; Wright Medical Group, Inc.

Cases: Antitrust NewJerseyNews GCNNews