Surgical Instrument Service Company, Inc. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.
Filing
440
ORDER FOLLOWING JURY CHARGE CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin on January 27, 2025. (amolc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2025)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
SURGICAL INSTRUMENT SERVICE
COMPANY, INC., et al.,
8
Plaintiffs,
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
v.
Case No. 21-cv-03496-AMO
ORDER FOLLOWING JURY CHARGE
CONFERENCE
INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC.,
Defendant.
12
13
During the conference discussing the Court’s Tentative Jury Charge, counsel for Plaintiff
14
Surgical Instrument Service Company, Inc. (“SIS”) objected to the Court’s proposed instruction
15
regarding single-brand aftermarket. See ECF 437 at 23. The Court declined to remove the
16
instruction at the conference, indicating that a plaintiff seeking to establish a single-brand
17
aftermarket needs to satisfy the four-part test from Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 67 F.4th 946,
18
977 (9th Cir. 2023). However, based on counsel’s argument and the evidence presented in this
19
case, SIS does not contend that Defendant Intuitive Surgical, Inc. (“Intuitive”) lacks market power
20
in the purported market of minimally-invasive soft tissue robots and that Intuitive’s customers are
21
“locked-in” to an alleged single-brand aftermarket of replacement and repaired EndoWrist
22
instruments. See Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Tech. Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 464-66, 476-78
23
(1992); Newcal Indus., Inc. v. Ikon Off. Sol., 513 F.3d 1038, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2008). To the
24
contrary, SIS asserts that Intuitive has market power in the purported market of minimally-
25
invasive soft tissue robots. See Eastman Kodak, 504 U.S. at 464-66. In light of this theory of the
26
case, the Court finds the proposed jury instruction requiring SIS to prove the Epic v. Apple factors
27
unnecessary. The Court will accordingly not provide that instruction to the jury.
28
1
Intuitive requested edits to the proposed instructions on pages 20 and 46 of the Tentative
2
Jury Charge stating that consideration of the Section 2 claim is limited to evidence presented in
3
support of SIS’s Section 1 tying and exclusive dealing claims. That is not an accurate statement of
4
the law, and the Court declines Intuitive’s proposed edits accordingly.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
5
During the conference, Intuitive requested an additional jury instruction about evidence
6
regarding design changes to X and Xi model Endowrists. Reviewing it as a stand-alone
7
instruction, the Court proposed some edits to Intuitive’s proposal and indicated that it would be
8
included among the final instructions. Upon further reflection, and in trying to work the design
9
instruction into the jury charge, the Court concludes that it will ultimately be more confusing than
10
helpful to the jury to instruct them about the consideration of design evidence. Thus, it will not be
11
included.
12
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 27, 2025
15
16
ARACELI MARTÍNEZ-OLGUÍN
United States District Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?