claims set forth in Counts III, TV and I respectively. Count VIII alleges a claim for “inducing refusals to deal under the Illinois Antitrust Act.” Although Menasha did not raise a refusal to deal allegation in its Sherman Act claims, the threshold requirement of defining the relevant market is applied with equal force in the context of refusals to deal. See Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585, 595, 105 S.Ct. 2847, 86 L.Ed.2d 467 (1985). Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Court’s discussion of Menasha’s Sherman Act claims, News America is entitled to summary judgment on Counts V-VIII of Menasha’s Complaint. See A & A Disposal and Recycling, Inc. v. Browning-Ferris Industries of Illinois, Inc., 279 Ill.App.3d 337, 215 Ill.Dec. 954, 664 N.E.2d 351 (1996)(<HOLDING>). Menasha’s Unfair Competition and Tortious
holding that a plaintiffs failure to establish a welldefined relevant market entitles a defendant to summary judgment for claims under section 3 of the illinois antitrust act holding because trial court fully considered plaintiffs response to summary judgment motion failure to render summary judgment without notice or hearing harmless thus trial court was not required to vacate the summary judgment and then reinstate it to accomplish the same end holding that the trial court correctly entered summary judgment in favor of defendant and denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment where plaintiff failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that defendant breached its duty to act in good faith holding that the court had an adequate record to grant the defendants motion for summary judgment because the relevant evidence would have been in plaintiffs possession holding that plaintiffs complaint failed to state a claim under section 1 of the sherman act