Court denies MeridianEMR's injunction suit against Intuitive Medical
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the application of MeridianEMR for a preliminary injunction to bar Intuitive Medical Software (IMS), the developer and marketer of UroChartEHR, “from using, disclosing, conveying, trading on or disposing of [Meridian’s] proprietary or confidential information and trade secrets.” The N.J. court denied Meridian's application, finding that IMS posed no threat of irreparable harm to Meridian.
The litigation resulted from IMS assisting a specialty urology practice interested in converting from MeridianEMR to UroChartEHR, according a statement by Springfield, Mo.-based IMS. “Meridian asserted in the litigation that its customers who desired to ‘convert’ their patient records for use with another EHRs system were obligated to pay Meridian’s charges for such ‘conversion.’”
On June 16, Meridian filed suit against IMS and its own customer, alleging that IMS had, in the course of providing such assistance to the urology practice, converted its property, interfered with its contracts and prospective economic advantage, had been unjustly enriched and was liable to Meridian for damages. Meridian also alleged that its own customer had, in the course of evaluating a conversion to UroChartEHR, breached its contract with Meridian, breached its obligations of good faith and fair dealing and had committed fraud and negligent misrepresentation.
In its opposition to Meridian’s application for a preliminary injunction, IMS denied that either IMS or the Meridian customer named in the lawsuit had acted unlawfully or damaged Meridian as Meridian alleged. Craig D. Frazier, president and CEO of IMS told the court, “The action instituted by [Meridian] is an attempt to prevent one of its customers...from migrating to UroChartEHR and to send a message to other customers of [Meridian] to discourage them from doing likewise.” Frazier told the court that he believed the litigation to be part of an overall strategy by Meridian to “lock-in” its customers.
In the wake of the Court’s ruling denying the application, Meridian has launched a campaign defending its actions as necessary to protect the health information of its customers and its trade secrets. Documents filed with the district court confirm that neither of these were at risk.
The litigation is not concluded. IMS stated it intends to defend itself against Meridian’s claims for damages (and request for a permanent injunction) and to assert its claims against Meridian.
The litigation resulted from IMS assisting a specialty urology practice interested in converting from MeridianEMR to UroChartEHR, according a statement by Springfield, Mo.-based IMS. “Meridian asserted in the litigation that its customers who desired to ‘convert’ their patient records for use with another EHRs system were obligated to pay Meridian’s charges for such ‘conversion.’”
On June 16, Meridian filed suit against IMS and its own customer, alleging that IMS had, in the course of providing such assistance to the urology practice, converted its property, interfered with its contracts and prospective economic advantage, had been unjustly enriched and was liable to Meridian for damages. Meridian also alleged that its own customer had, in the course of evaluating a conversion to UroChartEHR, breached its contract with Meridian, breached its obligations of good faith and fair dealing and had committed fraud and negligent misrepresentation.
In its opposition to Meridian’s application for a preliminary injunction, IMS denied that either IMS or the Meridian customer named in the lawsuit had acted unlawfully or damaged Meridian as Meridian alleged. Craig D. Frazier, president and CEO of IMS told the court, “The action instituted by [Meridian] is an attempt to prevent one of its customers...from migrating to UroChartEHR and to send a message to other customers of [Meridian] to discourage them from doing likewise.” Frazier told the court that he believed the litigation to be part of an overall strategy by Meridian to “lock-in” its customers.
In the wake of the Court’s ruling denying the application, Meridian has launched a campaign defending its actions as necessary to protect the health information of its customers and its trade secrets. Documents filed with the district court confirm that neither of these were at risk.
The litigation is not concluded. IMS stated it intends to defend itself against Meridian’s claims for damages (and request for a permanent injunction) and to assert its claims against Meridian.