Image Technical Services, Inc., et al. v. Eastman Kodak, et al.
Published: Sep. 30, 1995 | Result Date: Sep. 18, 1995 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: C871686AWT – $23,948,300
Judge
Court
USDC Northern
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Donald R. Pepperman
(Baker & Marquart LLP)
Maxwell M. Blecher
(Blecher, Collins & Pepperman PC)
James R. Noblin
(Green & Noblin PC)
Defendant
Daniel M. Wall
(Latham & Watkins LLP)
Alfred C. Pfeiffer Jr.
(Latham & Watkins LLP)
Holly A. House
(Law Offices of Holly House)
Experts
Plaintiff
Jeffrey Mackie-Mason
(technical)
Thomas M. Neches
(technical)
Defendant
Carl B. Shapiro
(technical)
J. Ordover
(technical)
Facts
Plaintiffs, 11 independent service organizations (ISO's), provide repair and service to Defendant Eastman Kodak's line of high-volume photocopiers and micrographics equipment and sell used and reconditioned equipment, at considerably lower prices than Defendant. In 1985 Kodak decided not to continue selling replacement parts to ISO's. Plaintiffs charged Kodak with monopolizing and attempting to monopolize the service on its photocopiers and micrographic equipment. In 1992 this case was reviewed by the United States Supreme Court; it ruled that an earlier summary judgment against the ISO's was improper and that Plaintiffs had sufficient evidence to go forward to a jury trial, under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Kodak services approximately 98 percent of its line of high-volume copiers and this produces revenues to Kodak in excess of $500,000,000 yearly. Kodak also services virtually all of its post-1986 line of microfilm equipment producing revenues of more than $100,000,000 per year.
Settlement Discussions
Plaintiffs contend their initial demand was $45,000,000 for this case and $90,000,000 combined for this case and a larger companion case; and that Kodak made no settlement offer. Defendant contends that Plaintiffs demanded $90,000,000 and that Kodak did not respond to that demand.
Damages
Plaintiffs requested $45,000,000 for lost equipment-service revenues and used-equipment sales for both Kodak high-volume photocopiers and micrographics equipment.
Result
The successful Plaintiffs are: (1) Image Technical Services, Sacramento; (2) Advanced Systems Services, Inc., Denver, Colorado; (3) AMTech Equipment Maintenance Company, St. Paul, Minnesota; (4) Atlanta General Microfilm Company, Atlanta, Georgia; (5) B.C.S. Technical Services, Inc., Denver, Colorado; (6) CPO Ltd., Santa Clara; (7) J-E-S-P, Union City, New Jersey; (8) Micrographic Service, Inc., Republic, Missouri; (9) Omni Micrographic, Inc., Santa Clara; and (10) Shields Business Machines, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The jury found liability against Kodak, but no damages, as to Plaintiff Data Prox, Jersey City, New Jersey.
Other Information
Violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act carry automatic treble damages. Attorney fees and injunctive relief are pending.
Deliberation
14 days
Poll
10-0 (2 dismissed)
Length
2 months
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390