Id Security Systems Canada v. Checkpoint Systems
| Decision Date | 28 March 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV.A.99-577.,CIV.A.99-577. |
| Citation | 249 F.Supp.2d 622 |
| Parties | ID SECURITY SYSTEMS CANADA, INC., Plaintiff, v. CHECKPOINT SYSTEMS, INC. Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Rudolph Garcia, J. Clayton Undercofler, III, William A. De Stefano, Kara H. Good child, Saul Ewing LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for ID Security Systems Canada Inc., Plaintiff.
C. Clark Hodgson, Jr., tradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, Patricia Casperson, Stradley, Ronon, Stevens and Young, Phidict, la, John De Q. Briggs, III, Howrey Simon Arnold & White, LLP, Washington, DC, Michael C. Chase, Stradley Ronon Stevens &Young, LLP, Keith R. Dutill, Stradley, Ronon Stevens & Ymn LLP Philadel" Phia, for Checkpoint Systems, Inc., Defenthere is: (1) evidence to establish damages an with reasonable certainty; (2) damages OPINION
Plaintiff, ID Security Systems Canada, Inc. ("ID Security"), brought this federal antitrust and state law action against Checkpoint Systems, Inc. ("Checkpoint") in connection with Checkpoint's alleged interference in a supply agreement between ID Security and Tokai Electronics, Ltd. ("Tokai"). According to ID Security, Checkpoint, a manufacturer of electronic article surveillance systems ("EAS systems"), violated the federal antitrust laws through illegal monopolization, attempted monopolization and conspiracy to monopolize with respect to the radio frequency tags ("RF tags"), products that are used in conjunction with EAS systems. In particular, ID Security alleged that Checkpoint interfered with its existing contract with Tokai in order to block ID Security's efforts to enter the RF tag market as a second supplier of tags to Checkpoint customers and as the future producer of a unique and superior tag compatible with Checkpoint's EAS systems. The contract interference in question also gave rise to ID Security's state law claims of tortious interference with contractual relations and unfair competition.
After a trial, the jury found in favor of Checkpoint on ID Security's claim of monopolization of commerce, but against Checkpoint on ID Security's claims of attempted monopolization and conspiracy to monopolize. It awarded ID Security compensatory damages of $28.5 million. Under federal antitrust law, the court trebled that amount to $85.5 million. The jury also found against Checkpoint on the state law tort claims, and awarded damages in the amount of $19 million, for a combined total of $104.5 million for both the antitrust and the state law claims. Checkpoint has since filed a motion for post-trial relief seeking judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, a new trial with respect to each of the four claims as to which the jury found in favor against Checkpoint. Checkpoint further challenges the award of damages in this case as unduly speculative, against the great weight of evidence, and a product of erroneous evidentiary rulings by the court.
With respect to the antitrust issues in this case, the court's threshold inquiry, before it may address whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain either of the antitrust verdicts against Checkpoint, is what constitutes the relevant market in this case, given the particular dynamics between the foremarket for EAS systems, in which Checkpoint competed strenuously with its rival Sensormatic, and the aftermarket for RF tags used with Checkpoint's system, i.e., the market which ID Security attempted to enter as a second source tag supplier. A related question is whether, given the burden of proof and the evidence in this case, the relevant market may be determined as a matter of law. As explained in more detail below, the court has determined that it can, and that a proper application of Kodak and its progeny dictate, as a matter of law, that EAS systems alone constitute the relevant market that Checkpoint could be accused of attempting or conspiring to monopolize.
The next question presented by Checkpoint's motion for post-trial relief is whether, given a relevant market for EAS systems, there was legally sufficient evidence to support a jury finding that Checkpoint indeed attempted to monopolize, i.e., had a dangerous probability of succeeding in monopolizing, the EAS systems market. In addition, the court must determine whether there was legally sufficient evidence to support a finding that Checkpoint conspired to monopolize the EAS market in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act, i.e., whether, even given that Checkpoint had the specific intent to monopolize the EAS market, Tokai Electronics, the object of its acquisition efforts, shared that intent. Having addressed the difficult antitrust questions that characterize this case, the court turns to an examination of the proofs, instructions, and rulings concerning ID Security's state law claims, as well to a determination of whether a new trial is warranted with respect to the damages awarded by the jury.
For the reasons...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Loeffel Steel Products, Inc. v. Delta Brands, Inc.
...lost profits, a trial judge has considerable leeway in determining the testimony's reliability. ID Security Systems Canada, Inc. v. Checkpoint Systems, Inc., 249 F.Supp.2d 622, 690 (E.D.Pa.2003). 8. In a lengthy "Declaration" belatedly submitted by the defendants in response to the present ......
-
M.D. v. Claudio
...Ambulance & Med. Serv., Inc., No.1994-2166, 1995 WL 842000, at *1-*2 (Pa.Com.Pl. Oct. 18, 1995)); ID Sec. Sys. Canada, Inc. v. Checkpoint Sys., Inc., 249 F.Supp.2d 622, 688 (E.D.Pa.2003); Yeager's Fuel, Inc. v. Pa. Power & Light Co., 953 F.Supp. 617, 668 (E.D.Pa.1997). Under Section 1 of th......
-
Premier Comp Solutions LLC v. UPMC
...relevant market, claims of attempted monopolization should be "presumptively" rejected. Id. ; See ID Sec. Sys. Can., Inc. v. Checkpoint Sys., Inc. , 249 F.Supp.2d 622, 648 (E.D. Pa. 2003) ("As a matter of law, a market share of less than 30 percent is presumptively insufficient to establish......
-
Mahaska Bottling Co. v. PepsiCo Inc.
...v. Atl. Richfield Co., 51 F.3d 1421, 1438 (9th Cir. 1995) ; M & M Med. Supplies, 981 F.2d at 168 ; ID Sec. Sys. Can., Inc. v. Checkpoint Sys., Inc., 249 F.Supp.2d 622, 648 (E.D. Pa. 2003) ("As a matter of law, a market share of less than 30 percent is presumptively insufficient to establish......
-
Private sector business records
...case with other business records, a proper foundation must be laid. See ID Security Systems Canada, Inc. v. Checkpoint Systems, Inc., 249 F.Supp.2d 622 (E.D.Pa., 2003). Invoices were not admissible under the business records exception in the absence of a qualiied witness to lay a foundation......
-
Private sector business records
...case with other business records, a proper foundation must be laid. See ID Security Systems Canada, Inc. v. Checkpoint Systems, Inc., 249 F.Supp.2d 622 (E.D.Pa., 2003). Invoices were not admissible under the business records exception in the absence of a qualiied witness to lay a foundation......
-
Private Sector Business Records
...case with other business records, a proper foundation must be laid. See ID Security Systems Canada, Inc. v. Checkpoint Systems, Inc., 249 F.Supp.2d 622 (E.D.Pa., 2003). Invoices were not admissible under the business records exception in the absence of a qualiied witness to lay a foundation......
-
Private Sector Business Records
...case with other business records, a proper foundation must be laid. See ID Security Systems Canada, Inc. v. Checkpoint Systems, Inc., 249 F.Supp.2d 622 (E.D.Pa., 2003). Invoices were not admissible under the business records exception in the absence of a qualiied witness to lay a foundation......