Home » Briefs » SourceOne Dental, Inc. v. Patterson Companies, Inc. et al


Econ One’s expert economists have experience across a wide variety of services including antitrust, class certification, damages, financial markets and securities, intellectual property, international arbitration, labor and employment, and valuation and financial analysis.


Econ One’s resources including blogs, cases, news, and more provide a collection of materials from Econ One’s experts.

Cases and Engagements

Get an Inside look at Economics with the experts.
Managing Director

Ph.D. in Economics, University of California, Los Angeles

M.A. in Economics, University of California, Los Angeles

B.S. in Economics, Santa Clara University

Econ One, President, 1997 – Present

Founded Econ One, 1997

Micronomics, Inc., President and CEO, 1994 – 1997

Micronomics, Inc., Executive Vice President, 1988 – 1997

Cofounded Micronomics, Inc., 1988

National Economic Research Associates, Inc. (Last position was Senior Vice President and member of the Board of Directors) 1980 – 1988

U.S. District Court

U.S. Bankruptcy Court

State Court

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Various state tax and regulatory commissions

Private arbitration

International Arbitration

Share this Article
June 11, 2024

SourceOne Dental, Inc. v. Patterson Companies, Inc. et al

SourceOne Dental Inc. v. Patterson Companies Inc., Henry Schein Inc., and Benco Dental Supply Company, Case No. 15-cv-05440 (ED NY).

SourceOne, which developed an innovative online sales model for dental equipment, sued the three leading U.S. bricks-and-mortar distributors of dental equipment—Patterson, Henry Schein, and Benco—alleging exclusionary conduct including a group boycott and efforts to prevent SourceOne from securing endorsements from state dental associations. SourceOne retained Econ One’s Dr. Jeffrey Leitzinger, who has extensive experience in the analysis of allegedly exclusionary conduct and quantification of antitrust damages.

Leitzinger was asked to (i) analyze the impact of the alleged conduct on competition and (ii) under the assumption of liability, form an opinion regarding SourceOne’s lost profits. He submitted an expert report in which he demonstrated the adverse effects of the challenged conduct on competition and developed a model of SourceOne’s but-for market penetration, revenue, and profits. Additionally, although the case involved per se antitrust offenses (and thus did not require formal market definition), Dr. Leitzinger found it instructive to define the relevant antitrust market and demonstrate Defendants’ market power. Dr. Leitzinger also submitted a rebuttal report, and provided deposition testimony in connection with each of his reports. He also testified at trial. Two of the defendants settled prior to trial, and the third settled after trial had commenced.

Industries: Healthcare

Latest Related Resources and Insights