Philips Medical Systems Nederland B.V. et al v. TEC Holdings, Inc. et al, No. 3:2020cv00021 - Document 641 (W.D.N.C. 2023)
Court Description: FINAL AMENDED ORDER denying in part and granting in part 379 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment; denying 383 Joint MOTION for Summary Judgment. This action shall proceed to trial. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 2/16/2023. (ams)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Philips Medical Systems Nederland B.V. et al v. TEC Holdings, Inc. et al Doc. 641 Dockets.Justia.com • The pmiies' disputed facts regarding the relevant market for purposes of Defendants' Sherman Act counterclaim and whether Plaintiff has a monopoly or market power in the relevant market • The parties' disputed facts as to whether Plaintiff denied essential facilities or access to essential facilities in violation of the Sherman Act As to Plaintiff's claims against Defendants under the Georgia Trade Secrets Act, only conduct that occurred in Georgia is actionable against Defendants. Thus, this case shall commence to trial for a liability finding on all claims and counterclaims except for Plaintiff's DMCA and CFAA claims. On these two claims, trial shall proceed as to the issue of damages only. V. CONCLUSION For those reasons, the Comi DENIES IN PART AND GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff's summary judgment motion, and the Comi DENIES Defendants' summary judgment motion. ORDER IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Motion for Patiial Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 379), filed by Plaintiff Philips Medical Systems, is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part, and the Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendants, (Doc. No. 383) is DENIED. This action shall proceed to trial. Signed: February 16, 2023 Max 0. Cogburn .h Unilcd States District Judge 34
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
