all turned on factual issues that were not proper to consider on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Id. at 873-78. It therefore overruled their Motion as it related to the antitrust claims. Insofar as the Defendants’ Motion related to Dr. Nilavar’s claim for tortious interference, the Court did not address the elements of intent or causation because they were not the focal point of the Defendants’ argument. See 142 F.Supp.2d at 886-87. Rather, the Court assumed these elements to be present, as it was required to do for purposes of ruling on that Motion, and focused its attention on the argument raised by the Defendants at that time, which was that they were privileged to enter into the Exclusive Contract, such that a claim of tortious interference could not be stated against them. See id. (<HOLDING>). The Court recognized that the few courts
holding that at will contracts of employment are subject to tortious interference with contracts claims holding that tortious or deliberate intent to harm a plaintiffs business relationship is not alone sufficient to support an intentional interference claim there must also be proof that the defendants interference was accomplished through improper means holding that the plaintiff stated a claim for tortious interference recognizing that an otherwise tortious act of interference with a business relationship will not subject the putative tortfeasor to liability if its act is privileged recognizing action for tortious interference with prospective advantage