furtherance of the conspiracy within the limitations period. VI. The Attempted Monopolization Claim In addition to the conspiracy claims, West Penn alleges that UPMC violated section 2 of the Sherman Act by attempting to monopolize the Allegheny County market for specialized hospital services. The elements of attempted monopolization are (1) that the defendant has a specific intent to monopolize, and (2) that the defendant has engaged in anticompetitive conduct that, taken as a whole, creates (3) a dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power. Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447, 456, 113 S.Ct. 884, 122 L.Ed.2d 247 (1993); Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U.S. 375, 396, 25 S.Ct. 276, 49 L.Ed. 518 (1905); LePage’s Inc. v. SM, 324 F.3d 141, 162 (3d Cir.2003) (en banc) (<HOLDING>) (citing Cont’l Ore Co. v. Union Carbide &
holding that a court should consider a defendants anticompetitive conduct as a whole rather than considering each aspect in isolation holding that a contract will be read as a whole and the intent of each part will be gathered from a consideration of the whole holding appellate courts must consider the trial courts jury charge as a whole holding district court erroneously failed to consider copyrighted show as a whole holding courts may not consider any single provision taken in isolation as controlling but must consider all provisions in context of entire instrument