United States Ninth Circuit

In an antitrust action claiming that plaintiffs overpaid for defendant's pulse oximetry sensors because defendant used improper marketing agreements and made its sensors incompatible with generic products, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) there was no evidence that defendant foreclosed competition in a substantial share of the sensor market; and 2) the undisputed evidence showed that defendant's patented sensor design was an improvement over the previous design.

Appellate Information

• Argued 12/08/2009
• Decided 01/06/2010
• Published 01/06/2010

Judges

• Before: DAVID R. THOMPSON and BARRY G. SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges, and SUSAN R. BOLTON, District Judge.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Herbet E. Milstein, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Washington, DC; and Bruce E. Gerstein and Joseph Opper, Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP, New York, NY, for the Plaintiffs-Appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Theodore B. Olson, Christopher D. Dusseault, and Margaret A. Farrand, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for the Defendants-Appellees.