Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—E.D. Pa.: Suit alleging hernia mesh monopoly claims can proceed, (May 15, 2026)

By Donielle Tigay Stutland, J.D.

The court found that Tela Bio’s claims of monopoly can proceed to discovery.

In a suit alleging a monopolization of the hernia mesh market, the federal district court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania denied a motion to dismiss filed by Becton, Dickinson & Company and its subsidiaries. Tela Bio, Inc. alleged that Becton, Dickinson pursued conditional pricing and multi-year bundling contracts through group purchasing organizations in order to block hospitals from stocking Tela’s competing biologic mesh product. The court found that Tela Bio, Inc. plead standing, a relevant market and anti-competitive conduct sufficient to proceed to discovery (TELA Bio, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., No. 2:25-cv-07189-GAW (E.D. Pa. May 12, 2026)).

Background. Tela Bio, Inc. is a publicly traded medical technology company with about 200 employees and its headquarters and principal place of business in Malvern, Pennsylvania. TELA Bio designs and manufactures hernia mesh products. TELA Bio also asserted that its products have advanced technologies—including its marquee hernia mesh OviTex—which can ultimately offer lower prices and expand choice for patients.

Becton Dickinson, along with its wholly owned subsidiaries C.R. Bard, Inc. and Davol, Inc., is a publicly traded, Fortune 500, global medical technology company engaged in the business of researching, developing, designing, licensing, manufacturing, distributing, supplying, selling, marketing and introducing into interstate commerce, either directly or indirectly through third parties or related entities, its medical devices, including Phasix, a line of Resorbable mesh for hernia repair and soft tissue reconstruction. Tela Bio asserts that both permanent and resorbable mesh markets have high barriers to entry, such as FDA clearance, large R&D and clinical-data costs, physician preference, hospital procurement bureaucracy, and obtaining patent. The complaint outlined that buyers are primarily hospitals and health systems that purchase through large group purchasing organizations (GPOs).

The complaint alleged that BD entered into overlapping, multi-year contracts with most major GPOs, IDNs, and individual hospital systems. Specifically, Tela Bio asserted that BD has illegally excluded TELA Bio from the Resorbable mesh market through engaging at least in the following anticompetitive conduct throughout the United States: (i) charging hospitals and other healthcare systems a large contractual penalty for disloyalty to BD’s products, by retroactively imposing much higher prices for Permanent and Resorbable mesh unless care providers buy virtually all their Permanent and/or Resorbable mesh and, sometimes, other medical devices, from BD; and (ii) contractually imposing threshold purchasing requirements with similar contractual penalties that amount to exclusive dealing arrangements.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act (Counts I and II for monopolization and attempted monopolization); and Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 3 of the Clayton Act (Counts III and IV for unlawful agreements and exclusive dealing that unreasonably restrain competition and may substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly).

Standing. The court concluded that Tela Bio adequately plead standing. Counts I and II of the Complaint allege violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act via monopolization and attempted monopolization. 15 U.S.C. § 2. The court noted that under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, “[TELA Bio] must plausibly assert that [BD] had monopoly power; that it obtained or maintained that monopoly through anticompetitive or exclusionary conduct; and that its conduct caused [TELA Bio] to suffer an antitrust injury.” Mylan Pharms. Inc., 2026 WL 201152, at *8. The court found that TELA Bio sufficiently met the pleading threshold.

Relevant Market. The complaint also identified two types of hernia mesh that each comprise distinct relevant antitrust markets: Permanent and Resorbable. Tela Bio’s complaint alleges that BD has used monopoly power in the Permanent mesh market to illegally foreclose competition in the Resorbable mesh market from Tela Bio’s lower-priced OviTex.

The court indicated that BD’s arguments in its motion to dismiss, including “the contours of the relevant product market, whether Defendant’s multi-product discounts are pro or anticompetitive” are not yet ripe for a decision.

Anticompetitive Conduct. Tela Bio alleges that BD’s contracts were de facto exclusive arrangements that foreclosed competition in the hernia mesh market. Specifically, in its complaint, Tela Bio alleged that BD engaged in anticompetitive conduct through leveraging its monopoly power over the hernia mesh market to block TELA Bio from entering the resorbable mesh market. The complaint argues that BD used “overlapping multiyear contracts” across GPOs, integrated delivery networks (“IDNs”), and individual hospitals. According to TELA Bio, this was in the form of tiered conditional pricing backed by pricing penalties across product lines. BD requires high purchasing thresholds for its products, a strategy which Tela Bio argued serves no legitimate business purpose other than to foreclose lower-priced options, such as TELA Bio, from competing on the merits.

The court found that TELA Bio plausibly identified customers in agreements with BD who cannot enter into business with competitors. The court found this sufficient to show a plausible violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 3 of the Clayton Act.

The Case is No. 2:25-cv-07189-GAW.

Judge: Weilheimer, G.

Attorneys: Brett M. Waldron (Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads) for TELA Bio, Inc. David Z. Gringer (Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr) for Becton, Dickinson and Co.

Companies: TELA Bio, Inc.; Becton, Dickinson & Co.

Cases: Antitrust PennsylvaniaNews