Philips settles ultrasound copyright claims

Philips has settled trade secrets and copyright claims against a medical imaging company, having already survived accusations of breaching antitrust law.

In a 2019 lawsuit, Philips accused Summit Imaging of altering its ultrasound machines to allow customers to access features they hadn’t paid for. Summit offers technical support and maintenance services for medical devices, including ultrasound equipment.

In return, Summit produced counterclaims accusing Philips of monopolising the market by refusing to grant competitors access to its diagnostic software.

A judge dismissed those antitrust claims against Philips last November, leaving the copyright and trade secrets claims outstanding. According to Philips, Summit breached copyright by modifying its software, enabling customers to access unauthorised features.

The parties have now settled the claims, just weeks after Philips filed a motion for summary judgment on its accusations. In a heavily redacted filing, Philips had accused Summit of modifying its software to bypass its copyright protection systems.

Summit had also allegedly advertised its services as a “legal” workaround of Philips’ security systems, allowing customers to enable features and options in the ultrasound systems without having to pay Philips.

But Summit claimed that it was entitled under law to reverse-engineer a product it lawfully owned, and that Philips failed to employ valid “technical measures” to protect access to its software. Summit also argued that because it had accessed a Philips-issued password, it was entitled to use it without breaching copyright law.

“The TechAdmin user name and password that Philips displays to any user of its iU/iE machines during software installation is a key that Philips created to enter its house. Even if Summit did not have authority from Philips to enter the house, its use of the Philips key is not a circumvention of the lock,” said a Summit court filing.

But this week, the court dismissed the case, having been notified of a settlement agreement. The notice of dismissal contained little detail on the settlement, only indicating that the claims had been dismissed with prejudice and without costs to any party.

Did you enjoy reading this story?  Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox