On reconsideration, antitrust claims remain stayed and misuse claims are also bifurcated; certification request fails
Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corp., Civil Action No.09-80-MPT, April 19, 2010.
Thynge, M. J. Defendant’s motion for reconsideration of its order bifurcating antitrust claims and staying related discovery is denied. The order is amended to bifurcate patent misuse claims and stay related discovery. The court declines to grant a motion to certify a question of law.
The disputed technology involves pulse oximetry. The complaint was filed in February 2009, amended in May, and defendant answered in June asserting 7 antitrust counterclaims. On March 11, 2010, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to bifurcate the antitrust claims and stay discovery related to them. Defendant moved for reconsideration. The court finds that defendant has not even given lip service to the standards applicable to a motion for reconsideration. The court rejects the argument that a stay is inappropriate absent extreme circumstances. Nor is the court persuaded to reconsider its order based on the argument that the court erred in its treatment of plaintiff’s “system claims.” The court does address defendant’s argument that it needs discovery on the antitrust claims for its patent misuse claim by amending its order to bifurcate the patent misuse claims and stay discovery on those claims along with the antitrust claims. Defendant moves in the alternative to certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1292(b) the following question: Whether, a patent holder, wielding economic monopoly power over a patented article, may rely on a “system claim” to exclude aftermarket competition from commodity components of the claimed system. The court declines to certify that question unconvinced such certification would advance materially the termination of this litigation.
