An Illinois federal judge has refused to hand Comcast a pretrial win in long-running litigation accusing the company of refusing to work with advertisers that don't use the cable provider's internal advertising system, ruling that the platform at issue is one-sided and that a damages expert dispute is best resolved at trial.

U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the Northern District of Illinois denied Comcast's motion for summary judgment in the litigation alleging that Comcast shut Viamedia out of the market by illegally tying its so-called interconnect services to its cable advertising representative services. In the order, Judge Coleman determined that she did indeed have jurisdiction to consider the one- or two-sided question. And Comcast's argument that the relevant markets — for interconnect services and for spot cable ad rep services — are two-sided transaction platforms doesn't hold up, the judge said.

Beyond that, Judge Coleman refused to take issue with Viamedia's theory that Comcast engaged in anticompetitive tying before any actual sale of spot cable ad rep services. Comcast had argued that the theory can't be squared with binding precedent, but the Seventh Circuit already rejected that argument, Judge Coleman said in the order, which is dated Oct. 14 and was posted to the case docket on Tuesday.

Judge Coleman is the latest federal judge to oversee the case since it was revived by the Seventh Circuit over five years ago. Comcast initially secured a summary judgment win over claims that it shut Viamedia out of the market by illegally tying its interconnect services to its cable ad rep services.

"The court acknowledges that the parties' motions have been fully briefed for almost three years and that this case has been before four district court judges," she said in the order. "The court appreciates the parties' patience."

The antitrust suit by Viamedia, a spot-cable advertising broker, accuses Comcast of using monopoly power to control spot ad sales in several designated market areas. The suit stems from Comcast's decision not to renew its contract with Viamedia after it expired, opting instead to sell ads through its own ad rep subsidiary, according to Viamedia.

Comcast had argued that Viamedia was proposing a market definition that treats ad sales as one-sided even though under the Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in Ohio v. American Express, they should be considered two-sided and therefore in line with the Sherman Act.

Comcast's interconnect services bring advertisers together with cable companies and other multichannel video programming distributors to buy and sell ads, which creates a "virtuous feedback loop" where increased participation on one end drives up value for the other, making it two-sided, it told the court earlier this year.

But Judge Coleman said in her order that the undisputed facts "show that in the market for the tied product, spot cable ad rep services, ad reps sell a myriad of services," not transactions themselves.

"Additionally, Comcast is mistaken that an ad rep cannot make a sale of a spot cable ad [time slot] to an advertiser without simultaneously making a sale of spot cable advertising rep services" to a multichannel video programming distributor, Judge Coleman said.

Similarly, the market for interconnect services involves operators providing a multitude of services, not a transaction, she said.

"Accordingly, the court concludes that neither the market for spot cable ad rep services nor for interconnect services is a two-sided transaction platform," Judge Coleman said.

The parties have a status conference scheduled for Nov. 4, according to the case docket.

Comcast and Viamedia didn't immediately respond to requests for comment late Tuesday.

Viamedia is represented by James M. Webster III, Aaron M. Panner, Kenneth M. Fetterman, Derek T. Ho and Leslie V. Pope of Kellogg Hansen Todd Figel & Frederick PLLC, and by Richard J. Prendergast, Michael T. Layden and Collin M. Bruck of Croke Fairchild Duarte & Beres LLC.

Comcast is represented by Ross B. Bricker and Michael T. Brody of Jenner & Block LLP, and by Arthur J. Burke, David B. Toscano and Christopher P. Lynch of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP.

The case is Viamedia Inc. v. Comcast Corp. et al., case number 1:16-cv-05486, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.