Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Memorex Corporation, Etc. v. International Business MacHines Corporation, Memorex Corporation, Etc. v. International Business MacHines Corporation

Memorex Corp., Etc. v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., Memorex Corp., Etc. v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 636 F.2d 1188 (9th Cir. 1981)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1981-02-05
Topic
litigation

How later courts describe this case

  • switching to a different interconnection strategy “at least as justifiable as the alternative” does not violate monopolization law even if it forces a competitor to “change some of its product designs”
  • directed verdict affirmed; no disposition as to striking plaintiffs’ demand for a jury trial

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Memorex Corporation, Etc. v. International Business MacHines Corporation, Memorex Corporation, Etc. v. International Business MacHines Corporation. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
51 opinions
MEMOREX CORP., v. INT'L BUS. MACH. CORP.,636 F.2d 1188(9th Cir. 1981)
MEMOREX CORPORATION, ETC., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. INTERNATIONAL
BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
MEMOREX CORPORATION, ETC., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, v. INTERNATIONAL
BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Nos. 78-3050, 78-3236.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted September 10, 1980.
Decided November 18, 1980.
Rehearing Denied in No. 78-3050 February 5, 1981.
Ronald S. Beard, Gibson, Dunn Crutcher, Los Angeles, Cal., argued for Memorex Corp., ILC Peripherals; Karl A. Limbach, Limbach, Limbach Sutton, San Francisco, Cal., on brief.

Patrick Lynch, O'Melveny Myers, Los Angeles, Cal., argued for International Business Machines Corp.; Edward B. Rogin, Orrick, Herrington, Rowley Sutcliffe, San Francisco, Cal., James V. Selna, Los Angeles, Cal., on brief.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; Samuel Conti, District Judge, Presiding.
Before DUNIWAY and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and KASHIWA,fn*Judge, United States Court of Claims.
PER CURIAM:
[1] In this anti-trust case the trial judge, after a full trial lasting 80 days, granted a motion for a directed verdict.ILCPeripherals Leasing Corp., et al. v. International BusinessMachines Corp.,N.D. Cal., 1978,458 F. Supp. 423. It had previously granted a motion for a directed verdict on one issue.ILC Peripherals Leasing Corp. v. International Business MachinesCorp.,N.D. Cal., 1978,448 F. Supp. 228. Plaintiffs appeal.

[2] The case is one of several similar cases. One of these isCalifornia Computer Products, Inc. v. International BusinessMachines Corp.,9 Cir., 1979,613 F.2d 727. There we affirmed a judgment based upon the granting of a motion for a directed verdict in a case that presented substantially the same issues and much of the same evidence. We are unable to distinguish Memorex's case from theCalifornia Computer Productscase, and we conclude that, on the authority of that case the judgment should be affirmed.See also The Telex Corp. v. InternationalBusiness Machines Corp.,10 Cir., 1975,510 F.2d 894, reversing N.D. Okl., 1973,367 F. Supp. 258;In re IBM EDP DevicesAntitrust Litigation, Transamerica Computer Co., Inc. v.International Business Machines Corp.,N.D. Cal., 1979, 481 F. Supp. 965.

[3] Our disposition of the case makes it unnecessary to decide whether it was error for the court to enter an order striking plaintiffs' demand for a jury trial in the event of a new trial.See,however,In re Financial Securities Litigation, Fabrikantv. Bache and Co.,9 Cir., 1979,609 F.2d 411.

[4] Affirmed.Page 1189
  1. The Honorable Shiro Kashiwa, sitting by designation. ↩