Philips North America LLC v. Summit Imaging Inc

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA, LLC, CASE NO. C19-1745JLR et al., 11 ORDER GRANTING MOTION Plaintiffs, FOR LEAVE TO FILE 12 v. SURREPLY

13 SUMMIT IMAGING, INC., et al., 14 Defendants. 15 This matter comes before the court on Defendants Summit Imaging, Inc., and 16 Lawrence R. Nguyen’s (collectively, “Summit”) motion for leave to file a surreply. 17 (Mot. (Dkt. # 55).) Summit requests leave to file a three-page surreply for the sole 18 purpose of responding to Plaintiffs Philips North America, LLC, Koninklijke Philips 19 N.V., and Philips India, Ltd.’s (collectively, “Philips”) arguments based on Federal 20 Trade Commission v. Qualcomm, Inc., 969 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Qualcomm”). 21 (Mot. at 2; see Reply (Dkt. # 54) at 4 (quoting Qualcomm, 969 F.3d at 993, 995).) 22 1 Because Qualcomm was issued the day after Summit filed its opposition to Philips’s 2 motion, Summit did not have the opportunity to address that case in its opposition. (See

3 Mot. at 2; see also Resp. (Dkt. #53).) Philips has not opposed Summit’s motion for leave 4 to file a surreply. (See generally Dkt.) 5 Having considered the motion, the relevant portions of the record, and the 6 applicable law, the court GRANTS Summit’s motion for leave to file a surreply (Dkt. # 7 55). Summit shall file a surreply of no more than three pages in length by no later than 8 November 5, 2020. Summit’s surreply shall be strictly limited to responding to Philips’s

9 arguments regarding the applicability of Qualcomm to Summit’s antitrust counter-claim 10 based on Philips’s alleged refusal to deal. (See Dkt. # 54 at 4.) 11 Dated this 30th day of October, 2020. 12 A 13 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22