Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • TOP STORY: Electrolux abandons acquisition of GE appliance unit
    • ACQUISITIONS & MERGERS NEWS: EC approves acquisition of Solera by Vista
    • ACQUISITIONS & MERGERS NEWS: FTC, Canada Competition Bureau challenge Staples, Office Depot deal
    • ACQUISITIONS & MERGERS NEWS: Joint motion would provide process for St. Luke’s divestiture of Saltzer
    • ADVERTISING—4th Cir.: Lanham Act claim against Google, Ziplocal properly rejected
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: EC investigates biofuels sector over ethanol benchmarks
    • ANTITRUST—D. Colo.: Bone mill monopoly claims against Medtronic fail for second time
    • ANTITRUST—N.D. Cal.: Artist’s $100M YouTube monopolization claim recommended for dismissal
    • FRANCHISING & DISTRIBUTION—D. P.R.: Arbitration clause in representation agreement survives 'duress' challenge
    • FRANCHISNG & DISTRIBUTION NEWS: Italian ice franchisor allegedly breached contract over franchise development rights
    • LAW FIRM NEWS: Competition lawyer Christopher Rother heads Hausfeld’s Berlin office
    • RICO—9th Cir.: Lack of pattern of racketeering activity dooms insurance agent’s claims
    • STATE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES NEWS: Supreme Court denies review of constitutional challenges to FAA
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—D. Colo.: Bone mill monopoly claims against Medtronic fail for second time, (Dec 7, 2015)

    Law Firms Mentioned:Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP | Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro, LLP
    Organizations Mentioned:Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP | Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP | Lenox MacLaren Surgical Corp. | Medtronic | Medtronic PS Medical, Inc. | Medtronic Sofamor Danek Co. Ltd. | Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. | Medtronic, Inc.

    By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

    In an action by a producer of a medical bone mill against medical devices company Medtronic for attempting to monopolize the market for mechanical bone mills used in spinal fusion surgery, the producer failed to present adequate evidence of any agree ...

    By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

    In an action by a producer of a medical bone mill against medical devices company Medtronic for attempting to monopolize the market for mechanical bone mills used in spinal fusion surgery, the producer failed to present adequate evidence of any agreement among the defendants to obtain a monopoly, the federal district court in Denver has ruled. Therefore, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted (Lenox MacLaren Surgical Corporation v. Medtronic, Incorporated, December 3, 2015, Krieger, M.).

    Lenox MacLaren Surgical Corporation developed and produced a medical bone mill for use in spinal fusion surgery. In 2000, the company entered a five-year exclusive supply and license agreement with Medtronic, Inc.’s subsidiary, Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA (Med USA), under which Med USA had exclusive rights to market the mill to hospitals and surgeons for one year. After the license agreement expired, another Medtronic subsidiary, Medtronic PS Medical, began selling a pneumatic bone mill attachment in competition with the Lenox bone mills. Moreover, Med USA initiated a voluntary recall of the Lenox mills after receiving physician complaints. An arbitration panel found in Lenox’s favor on an intentional interference with prospective business relations claim brought against Med USA over the recall.

    Having resolved its claims against Med USA, Lenox then filed suit against Medtronic and three other subsidiaries, alleging attempted monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. In June 2013, the district court granted Medtronic’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing Lenox’s claims. However, in August 2014, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment order and remanded the case. Subsequently, the defendants renewed their motion for summary judgment.

    Individual liability. The court found that Lenox failed to present adequate evidence of any agreement between any of the defendants and Med USA to obtain a monopoly in the bone mill market. The record contained no written documents, memoranda, or communications that referred to monopolistic plans or strategies. Lenox alleged only general conclusions without meaningful support that all of the defendants conspired to exclude Lenox and monopolize the bone mill market.

    It was undisputed that only Med USA entered into the distribution agreement in 2000, the court explained. Lenox also failed to show that any of the named defendants participated in the design, creation, or administration of the Med USA’s distribution of Lenox bone mills under a “loaner program” or that they conspired to do such conduct with a monopolistic intent. Furthermore, Med USA unilaterally recalled the Lenox bone mills, and Lenox failed to show that Medtronic instructed its subsidiaries on “how and what to recall” or was involved in the recall of the Lenox bone mills. Lenox’s evidence of Med USA’s notification to Medtronic of the recall did not establish the existence of a conspiracy between Med USA and Medtronic.

    Finally, the defendants demonstrated that the actions giving rise to Lenox’s monopoly claims were each conducted by Med USA. Lenox’s failure to present evidence creating a genuine issue of fact as to whether any of the named defendants were involved in a conspiracy to obtain monopoly power precluded Lenox from contending that the individual defendants were liable under a monopoly theory, the court concluded.

    The case is No. 10-cv-02139-MSK-NYW.

    Attorneys: Stanley M. Gibson (Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro, LLP) for Lenox MacLaren Surgical Corp. Catherine Fairley Spillman (Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP) for Medtronic, Inc., Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., Medtronic PS Medical, Inc., and Medtronic Sofamor Danek Co. Ltd.

    Companies: Lenox MacLaren Surgical Corp.; Medtronic, Inc.; Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.; Medtronic PS Medical, Inc.; Medtronic Sofamor Danek Co. Ltd.

    Cases: Antitrust ColoradoNews

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use