In Re: Da Vinci Surgical Robot Antitrust Litigation
3:21-cv-03825
| N.D. Cal. | Mar 31, 2025Background
- This antitrust class action was brought by several hospital plaintiffs against Intuitive Surgical, Inc., the manufacturer of the da Vinci surgical robot system, alleging anticompetitive conduct in the markets for da Vinci repair services and EndoWrist surgical instruments.
- Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of healthcare providers who purchased da Vinci service and EndoWrist instruments from Intuitive in the U.S. from May 21, 2017, to December 31, 2021 (excluding military and VA hospitals).
- Plaintiffs’ claims include tying, exclusive dealing, and monopolization of aftermarket maintenance services and surgical instruments.
- Intuitive opposed class certification on grounds including typicality, predominance, adequacy, and manageability, based on both legal and evidentiary disputes, including the scope of damages, class member identification, and statute of limitations.
- The court issued this ruling following a hearing on January 23, 2025, and after resolving cross-motions for summary judgment and motions to exclude expert testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Numerosity, Commonality, Typicality, Adequacy under Rule 23(a) | Class is numerous; claims and injuries are typical and common; reps and counsel are adequate. | Argues plaintiffs are atypical and inadequate due to supposed unique defenses/conflicts. | Court finds Rule 23(a) prerequisites met, including typicality and adequacy. |
| Predominance under Rule 23(b)(3) | Common issues regarding antitrust violations, impact, and damages predominate; expert supports this. | Argues damages, injury, and statute of limitations require individualized inquiries. | Court finds common issues predominate; class-wide proof is sufficient. |
| Superiority of Class Action | Class treatment more efficient due to high litigation costs and class-wide claims. | Potential large damages mean individual suits are preferable; class is unmanageable. | Court finds class action is superior due to efficiency and cost factors. |
| Rule 23(b)(2) Injunctive Relief Class | Intuitive’s conduct is market-wide; injunctive relief would be uniform. | Lack of specificity on injunctive relief; adequacy/typicality not met. | Court grants (b)(2) class; specificity sufficient at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (single common issue sufficient for commonality under Rule 23(a))
- Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, 568 U.S. 455 (2013) (court should not decide merits at certification; focus on classwide issues)
- Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 577 U.S. 442 (2016) (class evidence suffices if it is representative and can show liability/injury class-wide)
- Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. United Airlines, Inc., 948 F.2d 536 (9th Cir. 1991) (standard for monopolization claims under Sherman Act §2)
- Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477 (1977) (requirement of antitrust injury flowing from the violation)
- Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of California, 405 U.S. 251 (1972) (antitrust injury occurs at moment of overcharge)