Standard Oil Co., 405 U.S. at 261, 92 S.Ct. 885, some of these factors are "not relevant” in suits for injunctive relief, Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colo., Inc., 479 U.S. 104, 111 n. 6, 107 S.Ct. 484, 93 L.Ed.2d 427 (1986). But suits for injunctive relief, no less than suits for damages, require a plaintiff to demonstrate an "injury in fact.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). Moreover, an antitrust plaintiff — whether seeking relief in law or equity — must demonstrate "antitrust injury,” the more subtle details of which are not relevant here. See Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colo., Inc., 479 U.S. at 113, 107 S.Ct. 484; see also Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 130, 89 S.Ct. 1562, 23 L.Ed.2d 129 (1969) (<HOLDING>); Paycom Billing Servs., Inc. v. Mastercard
holding that plaintiff need only demonstrate a significant threat of injury from an impending violation of the antitrust laws holding that a plaintiff must show antitrust injury in order to bring an antitrust lawsuit holding that plaintiff must show antitrust injury meaning injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and which flows from defendants unlawful acts holding that an activity which is exempt from the antitrust laws cannot form the basis of an antitrust investigation holding that there must be a causal connection between the alleged antitrust violation and the antitrust injury for there to be antitrust standing