until “the monopolist actually sets an inflated price and its customers determine the amount of their purchases.” Id. The reasoning is less persuasive when the purchaser was a counterparty to an allegedly illegal contract, who knew when the contract was executed the allegedly inflated price it was required to pay and the allegedly anticom-petitive effects of the- contract. The two non-binding cases U.S. Airways cites do not alter this analysis. While the courts in both cases applied Berkey in the context of a Section 1 claim, neither case was brought by a purchaser alleging that its own contract was anticompetitive. Rather, both were brought by direct -consumers of the allegedly anticompetitively priced products. See In re Buspirone Patent Litig., 185 F.Supp.2d 363, 380 (S.D.N.Y.2002) (<HOLDING>); Precision Assocs., Inc. v. Panalpina World
holding that the plaintiffs claims under  22a452 were barred by the statute of limitations but declining to decide which statute to apply holding that section 1 claims of direct purchasers of buspirone products were not barred by the statute of limitations holding that parents were not entitled to use infancy tolling provisions and that the statute of limitations barred their claims holding that federal courts apply the forum states personal injury statute of limitations for section 1983 claims holding that the amended complaint could not relate back to the original complaint in which all claims were barred by the statute of limitations