SCM Corp. v. Xerox Corp., 79-8018
| Decision Date | 10 May 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-8018,79-8018 |
| Citation | 599 F.2d 32 |
| Parties | 1979-1 Trade Cases 62,629 SCM CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner, v. XEROX CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee-Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Stephen Rackow Kaye, Proskauer, Rose, Goetz & Mendelsohn, New York City, Kevin Moore, SCM Litigation Office, New York City, Ira B. Grudberg, Jacobs, Jacobs, Grudberg, New Haven, Conn., Widett, Slater, Goldman, Boston, Mass., for plaintiff-appellant-petitioner.
Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays, Handler, New York City, for defendant-appellee-respondent.
Before GURFEIN and MESKILL, Circuit Judges, and WYZANSKI, District Judge. *
This is a motion by the plaintiff, SCM Corporation, not opposed by defendant, Xerox Corporation, for the allowance of appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
SCM's civil antitrust suit against Xerox alleged its exclusion from the plain paper copying market and sought both money damages and injunctive relief. After a fourteen-month trial, the jury found for SCM on some of its claims and for Xerox on others. The jury found against SCM and in favor of Xerox on (1) an alleged exclusion beginning in 1964; (2) a denial of an opportunity to market the Fuji-Xerox 2200 copier; and (3) the impairment of SCM's marketing of the 6740 copier. The jury, on the other hand, returned a verdict in favor of SCM and against Xerox concerning (1) SCM's exclusion from the market beginning in 1969, for which the jury granted damages of $37.1 million; and (2) impairment of SCM's marketing of copiers by use of particular pricing plans (the "MUP pricing claim"), for which the jury awarded $230,874 in damages.
The District Court for Connecticut (Honorable Jon O. Newman, Judge) entered final judgment dismissing in their entirety the 1964 exclusion claim, the Fuji-Xerox 2200 claim and the 6740 marketing claim. The court also held that SCM was not entitled to money damages under § 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15, either for the 1969 exclusion claim or for the MUP pricing claim. As to the MUP pricing claim, Judge Newman denied money damages because he determined that SCM had failed to submit rationally based damage estimates, so that the jury's award was speculative. As to the 1969 exclusion claim, the Judge denied money damages, as a matter of law, under Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15, set aside the jury verdict for money damages, and deferred further evidentiary and other proceedings for the resolution of the proper prospective equitable relief under § 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 26. The Judge concluded his comprehensive opinion by holding that Xerox is not liable to SCM for any money damages but that "sound judicial administration dictates that the present voluminous record should not be supplemented by further evidence in support of claims for any particular equitable relief until a reviewing court has had an opportunity to consider whether any liability for equitable relief has been established."
The trial court recognized, however, that the route to appellate review was not entirely clear. He noted that some of the antitrust claims are clearly distinct from the severed Xerox claims of patent infringement and the SCM defense of patent invalidity and that since...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Berkey Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co.
...retrial is reduced. See SCM Corp. v. Xerox Corp., 463 F.Supp. 983, 988-90 & nn.13, 15 (D.Conn.1978), Remanded on other grounds, 599 F.2d 32 (2d Cir.1979). Certainly the already difficult task of reviewing a case of this magnitude would have been eased somewhat for this court if we knew prec......
-
MCI Communications Corp. v. American Tel. and Tel. Co.
...69 L.Ed.2d 405 (1981); SCM Corp. v. Xerox Corp., 463 F.Supp. 983, 1018-20 (D.Conn.1978), remanded for further proceedings, 599 F.2d 32 (2d Cir.1979) (per curiam), aff'd after remand, 645 F.2d 1195 (2d Cir.1981); ILC Peripherals Leasing Corp. v. IBM Corp., 458 F.Supp. 423 (N.D.Cal.1978), aff......
-
Southern Pac. Com. Co. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co.
...facilities with a competitor. And in SCM Corp. v. Xerox Corp., 463 F.Supp. 983, 1011-12 (D.Conn. 1978), remanded on other grounds, 599 F.2d 32 (2d Cir.1979), aff'd, 645 F.2d 1195 (2d Cir.1981), the court pointed out that "no case has been found" in which "even a monopolist" has been held li......
-
GAF Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co.
...from the antitrust laws." Further, the district court in SCM Corp. v. Xerox Corp., 463 F.Supp. 983, 1007 (D.Conn.1978), remanded, 599 F.2d 32 (2d Cir.), on remand, 474 F.Supp. 589 (D.Conn.1979), affirmed and remanded, 645 F.2d 1195 (2d Cir. 1981), held "Once a company had acquired monopoly ......
-
Antitrust, Uncertainty, and Technological Innovation
...available as a rem-edy, or whether the court decided merelythatmoney damages werenot a remedy without deciding the issue of liability." 599 F.2d 32,33 (2d Cir. 682 THE ANTITRUST BULLETINIn distinguishing between monetary and equitable reliefthe court reasoned as follows:A § 2 violation base......