Teikoku individually possessed, threatened to possess, or conspired to possess monopoly power. Id. Plaintiffs respond that Endo and Teikoku acted as a single economic entity that monopolized the market for lidocaine patch 5%, and therefore should be treated as a single entity under Section 2. Oppo. 25. Alternatively, they request that I treat the complaints as if they had alleged that Endo alone possessed monopoly power. Oppo. 27. Finally, they request that I grant them leave to amend their complaints. Plaintiffs do not cite any case where a court held a manufacturer and its distributor jointly liable for violating Section 2. A monopoly, by definition, consists of a single firm, and both monopolization and attempted monopolization are single-firm violations. See Rebel, 51 F.3d at 1443 (<HOLDING>); see also, Terminalift LLC v. International
holding that a plaintiff claiming monopolization is obligated to establish the relevant market because the power to control prices or exclude competition only makes sense with reference to a particular market holding that high prices with no showing of restricted output failed to establish monopoly power holding a defendant is liable as a control person if the defendant had the power to control the general affairs of the entity primarily liable at the time the entity violated the securities laws but declining to decide whether power to control means simply abstract power to control or actual exercise of the power to control internal quotations omitted holding elements of attempted monopolization claim under  2 of sherman act are intent anticompetitive conduct and dangerous probability of success in a relevant market holding that to pose a threat to monopolization one firm alone must have the power to control market output and exclude competition