The case is about whether Pace Electronics suffered an antitrust injury when Canon terminated their contract for refusing to take part in a vertical minimum price-fixing scheme. Pace claimed that it lost profits due to the alleged scheme between Canon and Laguna Corporation, its competitor. The District Court had dismissed Pace's complaint. The most relevant facts are the legality of vertical minimum price fixing agreements and whether Pace's injury was connected to the antitrust laws. Pace Electronics, Inc. v. Canon Computer Systems, Inc. (2000) United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 213 F.3d 118 Learn more about this case at https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/pace-electronics-inc-v-canon-computer-systems-inc-25792372 --- Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite. Check out all of our case briefs: https://www.lsd.law/briefs Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text. Subscribe for new videos every week: https://www.youtube.com/@LSData?sub_confirmation=1