Servicetrends v. Siemens Medical Systems, Inc.
| Citation | 870 F. Supp. 1042 |
| Decision Date | 21 March 1994 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 1:93-CV-299-JTC. |
| Parties | SERVICETRENDS, INC., Plaintiff, v. SIEMENS MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Martin J. Elgison, John Kirk Train, III, Michael P. Kenny, Alston & Bird, John R. Lowery, Jane F. Thorpe, Pursley, Howell, Lowery & Meeks, Atlanta, GA, for plaintiff.
Chilton Varner, King & Spalding, Atlanta, GA, Kenneth A. Gallo, Edward Han, Keith E. Pugh, Jr., Howrey & Simon, Washington, DC, for defendant.
This is a complex antitrust case consisting of Plaintiff's eighteen count Complaint and Defendant's eleven counterclaims. The matter is presently before the Court on Defendant Siemens Medical Systems, Inc.'s ("SMS") Motion for Summary Judgment # 139; Plaintiff Servicetrends, Inc.'s ("Servicetrends") Motion for Summary Judgment on Counterclaims # 147; and Plaintiff's Motion to Add Defendants #50. For the following reasons, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Defendant's counterclaims is GRANTED. Plaintiff's motion to add Defendants is DENIED.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Background 1049
II. Summary Judgment Standard 1050
III. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 1051
A. Monopolization and Attempted Monopolization 1051
1. The Evils of Monopoly Power 1052
2. The Relevant Product Markets 1054
3. Monopolistic Conduct 1054
(a) The Essential Facilities Doctrine 1055
(b) Monopoly Leveraging 1057
(c) Price Discrimination 1057
4. Conclusion 1059
B. Tying Arrangements 1059
C. Predatory Pricing Claims 1062
D. Exclusive Dealing & Concerted Refusal to Deal 1064
1. Exclusive Dealing 1064
2. Concerted Refusal to Deal 1066
E. Disparagement and Tortious Interference 1067
1. The Legal Effect of Disparagement 1067
2. Tortious Interference 1068
F. Damages 1069
IV. Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on Counterclaims 1069
A. Supplemental Facts and Analysis 1069
1. Geographic Market 1069
2. Product Market 1070
3. Market Power 1070
4. Antitrust Injury 1071
B. Defendant's Antitrust Counterclaims 1071
1. Section 7 of the Clayton Act 1071
2. Conspiracy to Monopolize 1072
3. Monopolization and Attempt 1072
C. Defendant's Business Tort Counterclaims 1073
1. Disparagement & Unfair Trade Practices 1073
2. Misappropriation of Confidential Info. 1073
3. Tortious Interference 1074
4. Unjust Enrichment 1076
V. Plaintiff's Motion to Add Defendants 1076
VI. Summary 1076
Siemens Medical Systems, Inc. is the American subsidiary of the German conglomerate Siemens Aktiengesellschaft ("Siemens AG"). Siemens AG manufactures the "Lithostar," a non-invasive medical device known as a lithotripter, which dissolves kidney stones by projecting high energy shock waves into the human body. The Lithostar is one of several brands of lithotripters available from different manufacturers. The Lithostar costs about $1.5 million, is durable and long lasting, but requires frequent maintenance and periodic replacement of parts. Defendant SMS is the exclusive distributor of the Lithostar in the United States, providing sales, service and maintenance contracts after installation. Of the total 378 lithotripters currently in use in this country, 80 are Siemens Lithostars. SMS has contracts with equipment owners to service 67 or 68 Lithostars, amounting to about 85% of the total number of installed Lithostars but only 18% of the total lithotripters in the U.S.
Plaintiff Servicetrends is an independent service company incorporated in July, 1992, to provide maintenance for lithotripters. The company's sole business is servicing the Siemens Lithostar and its competitors, such as the Dornier HM-3.1 Servicetrends does not operate lithotripters for patient treatment. To date, Servicetrends has secured service contracts on 12 or 13 Lithostars, approximately 16% of the potential Lithostar service contracts available in the United States. Servicetrends also has 27 contracts to service the Dornier HM-3.
The Lithostar is composed of numerous parts, among them the shocktube, the spark gap, and the shockwave generator. Plaintiff' labels these "replacement parts." Replacement parts are modular units made up of several components. Siemens AG is Defendant's sole source of replacement parts, and Defendant is the sole distributor of Lithostar brand replacement parts in the United States. SMS provides replacement parts to its own service personnel for use in servicing equipment, and sells the same replacement parts to equipment owners and independent service organizations, including Servicetrends. SMS services Lithostars at the modular replacement part level only and does not sell or service the individual components that make up the replacement parts.
Although Lithostar parts are not interchangeable with parts produced by other lithotripter manufacturers, components made by independent manufacturers ("OEM's") can be purchased separately and used to repair the Lithostar without buying Siemens' modular replacement parts. For example, Servicetrends buys the spark gap and the shockwave generator components from OEM's and uses these components to service a customer's Lithostar on site. However, Servicetrends can buy the shocktube replacement part only in its modular form and only from SMS.2
Plaintiff says that SMS forces Lithostar buyers to use SMS parts and repair services, thereby precluding Servicetrends from competing in the market for replacement parts and service contracts. In an extensive eighteen count complaint, Servicetrends alleges a wide variety of antitrust and business tort claims. Servicetrends contends that SMS engages in illegal tying arrangements, monopolization and attempted monopolization of markets for service and parts for lithotripters and Lithostars, exclusive dealing, concerted refusal to deal, violations of the Lanham Act and the Georgia Unfair Trade Practices Act, and tortious interference. Plaintiff seeks relief as provided under the Shenman and Clayton Acts — treble damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.
Rule 56(c), Fed.R.Civ.P., defines the standard for summary judgment: Courts should grant summary judgment when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact ... and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." The general rule of summary judgment in the Eleventh Circuit states that the moving party must show the court that no genuine issue of material fact should be decided at trial. Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604 (11th Cir.1991). "Unless the movant for summary judgment meets its burden under Rule 56, the obligation of the opposing party does not arise even if no opposing evidentiary material is presented by the party opposing the motion." Id.
While all evidence and factual inferences are to be viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, Rollins v. Tech-South, Inc., 833 F.2d 1525, 1529 (11th Cir. 1987); Everett v. Napper, 833 F.2d 1507, 1510 (11th Cir.1987), "the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). An issue is not genuine if it is unsupported by evidence, or if it is created by evidence that is "merely colorable" or is "not significantly probative." Id. at 249, 106 S.Ct. at 2511. Similarly, a fact is not material unless it is identified by the controlling substantive law as an essential element of the nonmoving party's case. Id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at 2510.
Where neither party can prove either the affirmative or the negative of an essential element of a claim, the movant meets its burden on summary judgment by showing that the opposing party will not be able to meet its burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). In Celotex, the Supreme Court interpreted Rule 56(c) to require the moving party to demonstrate that the nonmoving party lacks evidence to support an essential element of its claim. Thus, the movant's burden is "discharged by `showing' — that is, pointing out to the district court — that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Id.
In either situation, only when the movant meets this burden, does the burden shift to the opposing party, who must then present evidence to establish the existence of a material issue of fact. Id. The nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and submit evidence in the form of affidavits, depositions, admissions and the like, to demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Indep. Serv. Organizations Antitrust Lit.
...markets. See ISO Antitrust Litig., 989 F.Supp. at 1137 (citing Miller Insituform, 830 F.2d at 609 and Servicetrends, Inc. v. Siemens Med. Sys., Inc., 870 F.Supp. 1042, 1056 (N.D.Ga. 1994), amended on reconsideration, 1994 WL 776878 (N.D.Ga. Jun.24, 1994)). A patentee may unilaterally exclud......
-
CONLEY PUB. GROUP v. Journal Communications
...Cable Corp. v. Rifkin/Narragansett S. Fla. CATV Ltd. P'ship, 941 F. Supp. 1189 (S.D. Fla. 1996); Servicetrends, Inc. v. Siemens Med. Sys., Inc., 870 F.Supp. 1042 (N.D. Ga. 1994)). These cases were later settled out of court, precluding their chance to succeed on the merits. See Bolton et al......
-
Trilink Saw Chain, LLC v. Blount, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:07-CV-0409-CAP.
...financial injury; and (5) that the defendant is a stranger to the business relationship at issue. Servicetrends, Inc. v. Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., 870 F.Supp. 1042, 1068 (N.D.Ga.1994); J. Kinson Cook of Georgia, Inc. v. Heery/Mitchell, 284 Ga.App. 552, 644 S.E.2d 440, 446 Oregon conten......
-
Keg Technologies, Inc. v. Laimer
...Inc. v. McCrary Eng'g Corp., 246 Ga. 503, 273 S.E.2d 112, 115-16 (1980) (stating rule); see also Service-trends, Inc. v. Siemens Med. Sys., Inc., 870 F.Supp. 1042, 1075 (N.D.Ga.1994) (doing likewise). But cf. Jennette, 239 Ga. App. 221, 520 S.E.2d 231, 234 (1999) (agent liable to return rev......
-
Single Firm Conduct
...(reluctant to find § 2 liability without actual or prospective monopoly in affected market); Servicetrends, Inc. v. Siemens Med. Sys., 870 F. Supp. 1042 (N.D. Ga.), amended , 1995 WL 776878 (N.D. Ga. 1994) (no distinct leveraging claim; plaintiff must show monopolization or attempt in secon......
-
Table of cases
...126 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,041 (2009), 230 Seminole Energy Servs., 135 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,010 (2011), 232 Servicetrends, Inc. v. Siemens Med. Sys., 870 F. Supp. 1042 (N.D. Ga.), amended , 1995 WL 776878 (N.D. Ga. 1994), 105 Sessions Tank Liners, Inc. v. Joor Mfg., 17 F.3d 295 (9th Cir. 1994), 201 Simon v......
-
Patents
...the monopoly granted by the patent laws by misuse, agreement, or accumulation.”); Servicetrends, Inc. v. Siemens Med. Sys., Inc., 870 F. Supp. 1042, 1057 (N.D. Ga. 1994) opinion amended on reconsideration sub nom. Servicetrends, Inc. v. Siemens Med. Sys., 1994 WL 776878 (N.D. Ga. 1994). IGT......
-
Robinson-Patman Act
...element in the case against” it and not as an affirmative defense. See id. at 561 n.18; Servicetrends, Inc. v. Siemens Med. Sys., 870 F. Supp. 1042, 1059 (N.D. Ga. 1994). 2. See Texaco, 496 U.S. at 554 n. 11. The Supreme Court did not attempt to delineate all types of services for which a f......