GN Netcom Inc. on Tuesday defended its “strategic” decision to drop a tortious interference claim against Plantronics Inc. in the middle of an antitrust trial, as it tries to stave off a $877,000 fee request and force a new trial against its rival headset maker.

Plantronics, which was cleared of antitrust allegations by a Wilmington jury in October, told U.S. District Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark of the District of Delaware last month that it was owed attorney fees and costs associated with defending the claim, which it said was brought in bad faith.

According to Plantronics, counsel for GN told Stark on Aug. 29 that it “could come up with” a standalone theory for tortious interference, but later withdrew the charge on the third day of the week-long trial without presenting any supporting evidence to the jury. The company's request represented one-fourth of the fees it incurred in defending the four-count suit from Aug. 29 through the end of October.

But GN shot back in its latest round of posttrial briefing on Tuesday, saying that it had asserted consistently since 2012 that Plantronics used exclusive agreements with headset distributors to intentionally damage GN's business.

In a court filing, GN said its argument for tortious interference was based on the same allegedly anti-competitive conduct that formed the basis of its antitrust claims against Plantronics and that both parties had agreed to withdraw the claim.

“GN should not be penalized for litigating its tortious interference claim throughout the life of the case and then making the strategic decision to dismiss the claim, with the consent of Plantronics, to simplify the case,” GN's attorneys said in the filing.

Meanwhile, GN continues to push for a new trial based on Stark's handling of thousands of deleted emails that could have been used as evidence in the case.

The spoliation, spearheaded by Plantronics' former senior vice president of sales, earned the company a $3 million fine, and Stark instructed the jury that it could assume the deleted corporate communications would have cut against Plantronics' defense. GN, however, has said the punishment didn't go far enough, and in November argued that Plantronics should have been hit with a dispositive sanction in the form of a default judgement.

Plantronics on Tuesday criticized the request as “yet another attempt” by GN to turn its antitrust suit into a case about spoliation. In a 25-page brief, the company called GN's assertions “utterly baseless” and attacked the evidence GN had presented at trial in support of its antitrust claims.

“Quite simply, the defense verdict in this case was not the result of an alleged legal error adverse to GN on the issue of spoliation,” Plantronics' attorneys wrote. “GN lost because its own documents, data, and witnesses proved that there was no exclusive dealing, no foreclosure, no anti-competitive harm, no causation, no injury, and no damage to GN.”

Attorneys for both sides were not available Wednesday to comment on the case. The final round of briefing on the companies' motions is expected by Dec. 12.

GN is 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 is 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.

The case is GN Netcom v. Plantronics.

GN Netcom Inc. on Tuesday defended its “strategic” decision to drop a tortious interference claim against Plantronics Inc. in the middle of an antitrust trial, as it tries to stave off a $877,000 fee request and force a new trial against its rival headset maker.

Plantronics, which was cleared of antitrust allegations by a Wilmington jury in October, told U.S. District Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark of the District of Delaware last month that it was owed attorney fees and costs associated with defending the claim, which it said was brought in bad faith.

According to Plantronics, counsel for GN told Stark on Aug. 29 that it “could come up with” a standalone theory for tortious interference, but later withdrew the charge on the third day of the week-long trial without presenting any supporting evidence to the jury. The company's request represented one-fourth of the fees it incurred in defending the four-count suit from Aug. 29 through the end of October.

But GN shot back in its latest round of posttrial briefing on Tuesday, saying that it had asserted consistently since 2012 that Plantronics used exclusive agreements with headset distributors to intentionally damage GN's business.

In a court filing, GN said its argument for tortious interference was based on the same allegedly anti-competitive conduct that formed the basis of its antitrust claims against Plantronics and that both parties had agreed to withdraw the claim.

“GN should not be penalized for litigating its tortious interference claim throughout the life of the case and then making the strategic decision to dismiss the claim, with the consent of Plantronics, to simplify the case,” GN's attorneys said in the filing.

Meanwhile, GN continues to push for a new trial based on Stark's handling of thousands of deleted emails that could have been used as evidence in the case.

The spoliation, spearheaded by Plantronics' former senior vice president of sales, earned the company a $3 million fine, and Stark instructed the jury that it could assume the deleted corporate communications would have cut against Plantronics' defense. GN, however, has said the punishment didn't go far enough, and in November argued that Plantronics should have been hit with a dispositive sanction in the form of a default judgement.

Plantronics on Tuesday criticized the request as “yet another attempt” by GN to turn its antitrust suit into a case about spoliation. In a 25-page brief, the company called GN's assertions “utterly baseless” and attacked the evidence GN had presented at trial in support of its antitrust claims.

“Quite simply, the defense verdict in this case was not the result of an alleged legal error adverse to GN on the issue of spoliation,” Plantronics' attorneys wrote. “GN lost because its own documents, data, and witnesses proved that there was no exclusive dealing, no foreclosure, no anti-competitive harm, no causation, no injury, and no damage to GN.”

Attorneys for both sides were not available Wednesday to comment on the case. The final round of briefing on the companies' motions is expected by Dec. 12.

GN is 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 is 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.

The case is GN Netcom v. Plantronics.