McKool Smith represented Red Lion Medical Safety and 16 other plaintiffs in securing a $131.4 million verdict against General Electric Company in a jury trial concerning allegations that GE engaged in anticompetitive conduct in the servicing of anesthesia machines.
The verdict was announced on April 26, 2017, after a seven-day trial before Honorable Judge Robert W. Schroeder III in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The jury awarded actual damages of $43,803,344. Under federal law, the damages are automatically trebled to $131.4 million. Potential injunctive relief and attorney fees will be determined by a judge at a later date.
GE is one of the largest manufacturers of anesthesia gas machines in the country. The plaintiffs alleged that the company ceased selling parts for anesthesia machines at list prices in 2011, and appointed Alpha Source Inc. as the sole supplier of parts, which hurt competition. The plaintiffs further alleged GE appointed Alpha Source in order to raise costs to the plaintiffs and to delay their response and repair time.
The main allegation against GE was that it created a policy that made it impossible for the plaintiffs to get their service technicians trained on new models of GE machines. This restriction on training would have forced all of the plaintiffs out of business within five years—conduct the plaintiffs alleged to be in violation of the antitrust laws. The jury agreed.
“The jury worked very hard to consider the facts and weigh the evidence,” said McKool Smith principal Sam Baxter, lead trial lawyer for the plaintiffs. “The verdict was a call for fairness in business, and it was a real victory for the little guys that were brave enough to take on a major corporation. We are delighted with the jury’s verdict.”
Full Content: SE Texas Record
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
Judge Appoints Law Firms to Lead Consumer Antitrust Litigation Against Apple
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Epic Health Systems Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Suit Filed by Particle Health
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Qualcomm Secures Partial Victory in Licensing Dispute with Arm, Jury Splits on Key Issues
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Google Proposes Revised Revenue-Sharing Limits Amid Antitrust Battle
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Japan’s Antitrust Authority Expected to Sanction Google Over Monopoly Practices
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand