By Alden Atkins and Ryan Will ( October 24, 2018, 3:02 PM EDT) -- In nearly every class certification motion in antitrust cases, the parties dispute whether the putative class contains uninjured persons and whether their presence defeats class certification. Rule 23(b)(3) requires plaintiffs to show that common issues predominate, and this requires plaintiffs to show (among other things) that the element of antitrust injury can be proven with evidence common to the class. Defendants often respond that the proposed class includes members that have not been injured by the allegedly anti-competitive conduct, and therefore individual inquires of injury will overwhelm the common evidence. The parties typically present fact and expert evidence on antitrust injury, and they debate whether the presence of uninjured persons should be fatal to class certification and, if so, how many uninjured class members would defeat class certification....