Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: Medical device maker seeks to eliminate interest award in $340M antitrust judgment, (Feb 13, 2015)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

In an action against a safety syringe manufacturer attempting to monopolize the market for safety syringes through deception and for false advertising under the Lanham Act, there was no basis for an award of pre-judgment interest in the final judgment, according to a motion to alter or amend the judgment filed by Becton, Dickinson & Company (Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, Inc., February 12, 2015).

Becton, Dickinson and Co. (BD) is a large medical supplier that manufactures and sells safety syringe and conventional syringe products. Retractable Technologies, Inc. (RTI), which competes with BD in the safety syringe market, sued BD for antitrust violations and false advertising. Specifically, RTI asserted claims for attempted monopolization and false advertising under the Lanham Act.

Following an eight-day trial, a jury found BD liable for attempting to monopolize the safety syringe market, awarding RTI over $113 million in damages. The damages were then trebled under the Sherman and Clayton Acts to $340 million.

BD asserts that, under the Clayton Act, simple interest on actual damages over a specified time frame may be awarded only if there was some form of bad faith or sanctionable conduct over the course of the litigation. There was no basis to find bad faith conduct by BD in this litigation, the court made no such findings in support of the final judgment, and such a finding would be inappropriate based on the record.

The Clayton Act requires that a motion be promptly made by the party seeking pre-judgment interest. BD argued that RTI did not comply with the prerequisite and made no request for pre-judgment interest in its initial motion for judgment. Previously, RTI’s motions for entry of judgment were comprehensive and aggressive, seeking all the relief RTI believed could be justified under the circumstances. If RTI believed it was entitled to pre-judgment interest, it would have requested such an award, according to the motion. Its failure to seek pre-judgment interest signals that the award is inappropriate and unavailable as a procedural matter, BD contends.

Attorneys: Robert A. Atkins (Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP), Samuel F. Baxter (McKool Smith, P.C.), and Alistair B. Dawson (Beck Redden L.L.P.) for Becton, Dickinson and Company, Inc.

Companies: Retractable Technologies, Inc.; Becton, Dickinson and Company, Inc.

News: Antitrust