Plantronics Cleared in Headset Antitrust Dispute
A Delaware federal jury on Wednesday ruled that Plantronics Inc.'s use of distributor agreements did not violate U.S. antitrust laws, rejecting rival GN Netcom Inc.'s claims during a weeklong trial that the headset maker had monopolized the market for sales to North American call centers.
October 19, 2017 at 06:31 PM
4 minute read
A Delaware federal jury on Wednesday ruled that Plantronics Inc.'s use of distributor agreements did not violate U.S. antitrust laws, rejecting rival GN Netcom Inc.'s claims during a weeklong trial that the headset maker had monopolized the market for sales to North American call centers.
The panel deliberated for just over an hour in Wilmington before returning its verdict in favor of Plantronics, which had withstood a $3 million sanctions ruling for deleting evidence in the four-year-old case. Ultimately, the jury said, the Santa Cruz, California-based Plantronics' use of so-called “Plantronics-only distributors,” or PODs, had not allowed it to control prices and box competitors out of the market.
Plantronics announced the verdict shortly after 10 a.m. on Wednesday, saying that it was now “putting the matter behind us.”
“Today's verdict in favor of Plantronics validates our position that Plantronics has always operated fairly and lawfully in a highly competitive marketplace and that the claims brought by GN Netcom are without merit,” Joe Burton, Plantronics' president and CEO, said in a statement.
GN said that it was considering an appeal but that the decision had not impacted its bottom line for 2017.
GN had accused Plantronics in 2012 of developing its POD program in violation of the Clayton and Sherman Acts. According to GN, Plantronics developed its POD program around 1997, in response to increased competition for headset sales to call centers in the United States and Canada.
Eventually, GN said, Plantronics had enticed 80 percent of specialized independent distributors to enter agreements barring them from selling competitors' headsets or purchasing competing products directly from the manufacturer. In 2012, Plantronics accounted for 75 percent of all headset sales to U.S. call centers, bringing in $713 million in net revenue, GN said in its complaint.
Plantronics contended that the PODs were actually pro-competitive. The firm said that no distributor was forced to enter the exclusive agreements and that they could be terminated at any time.
The company ran into trouble last summer after U.S. District Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark of the District of Delaware found last summer that Don Houston, Plantronics' senior vice president of sales at the time, had ordered employees to delete corporate emails during discovery, wiping out potentially thousands of documents that could have helped GN build its case.
Houston left the company in July.
The bad-faith spoliation cost Plantronics $3 million in sanctions and another $2 million in attorney fees and costs, according to the company's regulatory filings. Stark also narrowed the scope of the company's unsuccessful motion for summary judgment earlier this year and instructed the jury at trial that it was allowed to infer that the deleted communications would have worked against Plantronics' defense.
“In other words, your role is to determine whether Plantronics' spoliation tilted the playing field against GN,” he said, according to a written copy of the final instructions presented to the jury at trial.
“If so, the permission given to you by the court to infer that the missing documents would have been relevant and helpful to GN and/or harmful to Plantronics is designed to allow you to balance that playing field, should you feel it is necessary.”
The spoliation issue, though, seemed to have little bearing on the jury's final determination. The panel knocked out GN's three claims for monopolization and restraint of trade under the Sherman Act and another for exclusive dealing under the Clayton Act.
As of Thursday afternoon, GN had not yet appealed the verdict.
The case was captioned GN Netcom v. Plantronics.
GN was represented by Christopher S. Finnerty, Jeffrey S. Patterson, Michael R. Murphy and Morgan T. Nickerson of K&L Gates and Joseph J. Farnan Jr., Brian E. Farnan and Michael J. Farnan of Farnan LLP.
Plantronics was represented by Jonathan M. Jacobson, Chul Pak, David H. Reichenberg, Robert Corp and Yuan Ji of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and Jack B. Blumenfeld, Rodger D. Smith II and Jennifer Ying of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDavis Polk Lands Spirit Chapter 11 Amid Bankruptcy Resurgence
Trending Stories
- 1Dallas Jury Awards $98.65M in Botham Jean Killing by Dallas Officer
- 2In Talc Bankruptcy, Andy Birchfield Skipped His Deposition. Could He Face Sanctions?
- 3Pharmaceutical Patents: Benefits and Challenges
- 4Where Do Web-Tracking Class Actions Belong? 8th Circuit Weighs the Issue
- 5While Data Breaches May Lead to Years of Legal Battles, Cyberattacks Can be Prevented
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250