In Lenox MacLaren Surgical Corp. v. Medtronic Inc. et al., District of Colorado Judge Richard P. Matsch dismissed for failing to sufficiently allege anticompetitive harm. Lenox accused Medtronic of monopolizing the market for surgical bone mill devices by disparaging Lenox’s product. In dismissing Lenox’s suit, the court held that Lenox’s claims failed because they were premised on an overly narrow definition of the relevant product market and an inaccurate portrayal of the competitive landscape. Lenox ignored evidence that several rival bone mill devices were available during Medtronic’s alleged monopoly period, and the plaintiff failed to show that Medtronic’s actions had otherwise harmed consumers.
Although an arbitration panel previously found that Medtronic issued a false recall notice for Lenox’s device and that some consumers relied on the notice, those facts were insufficient to establish a Sherman Act claim. To be actionable, disparagement must be “prolonged” so that the plaintiff is unable to offset any negative effects through reasonable countermeasures. Here, by late 2006, the FDA had cleared the plaintiff’s device, thereby terminating the recall. Moreover, the prospective buyers were sophisticated hospitals and doctors who would have understood the market situation.