POLYTECHNIC DATA CORPORATION v. Xerox Corporation
Decision Date | 20 July 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 70 C 3027.,70 C 3027. |
Citation | 362 F. Supp. 1 |
Parties | POLYTECHNIC DATA CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. XEROX CORPORATION, a New York corporation, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Luther C. McKinney, David Aufderstrasse, Alan I. Greene of Chadwell, Kayser, Ruggles, McGee, Hastings & McKinney, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.
Max Wildman, Thomas D. Allen, Jerald P. Esrick, John J. Arado of Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon, Chicago, Ill., for defendant.
This cause comes on defendant's motion for Summary Judgment.
This suit is basically an Anti-Trust action brought under Sections 4, 12, and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 15, 22, and 26 in order to prevent and restrain the violation by the defendant of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 and to compensate the plaintiff for damages arising out of such violations. The plaintiff also brings this suit as a diversity action against the defendant for the willful violation of common law principles of unfair competition and tortious interference with plaintiff's advantageous business relationships.
The plaintiff, Polytechnic Data Corporation ("Polytechnic") is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Chicago, Illinois. The plaintiff is engaged principally in the business of manufacturing and selling and/or leasing, throughout the United States and elsewhere, the "Copy Controller-Key", a device which controls and measures work being performed on all types of copying machines.1
The defendant, Xerox Corporation ("Xerox"), is a New York corporation transacting business in Illinois. It is alleged to be the dominant manufacturer and marketer of copying machines in the world.
The plaintiff in the Complaint has alleged, inter alia, the following facts:
Xerox in support of its motion for Summary Judgment contends that there is no genuine issue of material fact and as a matter of law the plaintiff's Complaint is without merit. The defendant Xerox bases its position on the fact that Polytechnic's device has been tested and listed by U.L. for use in combination with all Xerox model copying machines pursuant to a method of attachment devised by Xerox,2 and Xerox has indicated that Polytechnic is free to make installations by means of this method of attachment. The defendant thus conceives the only issue in the instant action to be a legal question of whether Xerox has violated the law by unilaterally implementing reasonable conditions to protect its property and the users thereof.
The plaintiff in opposition to the instant motion contends that there exists a genuine issue of material fact which precludes summary judgment because: (1) Xerox adopted a "new" policy with respect to attachments; (2) its "old" policy was unreasonable; (3) the charge for Xerox interface equipment (a universal surface plug system for devices such as the plaintiffs) inhibits Polytechnic's ability to market its device in competition with the Auditron; and (4) Xerox's refusal to permit others to install interfact equipment of their own manufacture by their own employees is a tie-in arrangement.
It is important to the proper disposition of the instant motion to consider the following facts disclosed by pre-trial discovery and hearings:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Consolidated Farmers Mut. Ins. v. Anchor Sav. Ass'n
...the meaning of the Sherman Act. Frackowiak v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., supra, 411 F.Supp. at 1319. Thus, in Polytechnic Data Corp. v. Xerox Corp., 362 F.Supp. 1, 8 (N.D.Ill.1973), the court Polytechnic has alleged that Xerox has combined with certain of its lessees who have "acquiesced" in t......
-
Spectrofuge Corp. v. Beckman Instruments, Inc.
...478, 484; Morton Buildings of Nebraska, Inc. v. Morton Buildings, Inc., 8 Cir., 1976, 531 F.2d 910, 916-17; Polytechnic Data Corp. v. Xerox Corp., N.D.Ill., 1973, 362 F.Supp. 1, 8-9; Kendall Elevator Co. v. LBC&W Assoc., D.S.C., 1972, 350 F.Supp. 75, 78; Boone, Single-Corporation Competitiv......
-
DSM Desotech, Inc. v. 3D Sys. Corp.
...demonstrates that 3D intended, at least in part, to further its business and preserve its reputation. See Polytechnic Data Corp. v. Xerox Corp., 362 F. Supp. 1, 10 (N.D.Ill. 1973). Desotech alleges that it is continually trying to expand its business and customer base with valid business re......
-
Orion's Belt, Inc. v. Kayser-Roth Corp.
...action by separate business entities, as opposed to mere unilateral action by a single person or firm." Polytechnic Data Corp. v. Xerox Corp., 362 F.Supp. 1, 8 (N.D.Ill.1973). The Seventh Circuit in Bell v. Speed Queen, 407 F.2d 1022 (7th Cir. 1969), also looked to federal law to help inter......