totality, not in isolation. Organon counters that because none of its actions individually was illegal, taken together they cannot constitute an “overall scheme” to hinder competition, citing Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp., 195 F.3d 1346 (Fed.Cir.1999), in which the court declined to view a series of activities “together” and found that since each legal theory upon which antitrust claims were based was insufficient, they could not add up to anti-competitive behavior as a whole. Id. at 1366-67. The Intergraph court, however, held that a group of factual allegations may be viewed in their totality, even while pieces of legal theory may not be added up and taken as a whole. Id. (citing Cont’l Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., 370 U.S. 690, 699, 82 S.Ct. 1404, 8 L.Ed.2d 777 (1962) (<HOLDING>)); see also LePage’s Inc. v. 3M, 324 F.3d 141,
holding that the court of appeals should not have relied on   visible fiction it should have viewed the facts in the light depicted by the videotape holding that the trial courts purely factual findings must be accepted unless clearly erroneous or influenced by an incorrect view of the law and the evidence must be viewed most favorable to the party prevailing below holding that dependent upon the circumstances of the case a defendants deportability could be viewed as either a mitigating or an aggravating factor holding that the factual components of a case should be viewed together holding record is viewed in light most favorable to verdict