Summit Imaging denies hacking accusations by Philips, files counterclaim

Summit Imaging denies hacking accusations by Philips, files counterclaim

par John R. Fischer, Senior Reporter | June 19, 2020
Parts And Service Ultrasound
Philips accused Summit Imaging back in October of "hacking" into its ultrasound system and stealing trade secrets. Summit Imaging denies the allegations and has filed a counterclaim
Summit Imaging, a medical device repair company, has filed a request for a federal judge to dismiss claims of hacking and stealing trade secrets made against it and its CEO Larry Nguyen by healthcare tech giant Philips.

The Seattle-based company denies the accusations that were made in a lawsuit filed in October, in which Philips alleged that Summit built software that could hack into its ultrasound systems and other devices. It asserts that the Washington state organization’s intent was to bypass strict access controls that regulate how hardware can be used. Summit, in return, has filed counterclaims against Philips, accusing it of violating antitrust laws and of copyright misuse.

“These claims are based on Philips' efforts to prevent healthcare providers and independent service organizations from being able to service Philips' ultrasound equipment,” Per Marc Levy of Seed IP Law Group and Summit Imaging’s attorney, told HCB News. “Summit Imaging intends to vigorously defend itself against Philips' claims and prosecute its counterclaims against Philips for engaging in anti-competitive behavior.”

Servicing GE, Philips and Siemens CT equipment with OEM trained engineers

Numed, a well established company in business since 1975 provides a wide range of service options including time & material service, PM only contracts, full service contracts, labor only contracts & system relocation. Call 800 96 Numed for more info.

The suit alleges that Summit views its solution as a legal way to get around restrictions that companies like Philips integrate within their devices, and that it used this viewpoint to help sell the software to hospitals, healthcare networks, clinics, manufacturers and others. It states that the modifications made by Summit give illegal access to Philips proprietary software and trade secrets, and enable Summit and its customers to “force compatibility and interoperability” between Philips medical imaging devices and related hardware devices.

Philips says that Summit requires permission if it is going to “tamper” with the proprietary software of its systems, and that its actions misappropriate trade secrets, create false advertising, modify copyrighted materials, and constitute copyright infringement, among other claims. It is seeking the return of trade secrets, financial damages and an order barring Summit from using tools that allegedly go around its hardware controls.

“We can confirm that Philips filed a suit in the U.S. against Summit Imaging Inc. and Lawrence R. Nguyen for circumventing technical measures, modifying copyright management information, misappropriation of trade secrets, false advertising and unfair competition,” Mario Fante, senior press officer at Philips Global Press Office, told HCB News. “Regarding the counter claims, we believe none are of merit. At Philips we respect fair competition and intellectual property rights of others, and believe that other companies should abide by the same standards.”
(19)

(1)

Wayne Webster

Philips is caught in a circular argument

July 01, 2020 11:09

Philips and all the OEM's have a single narrative, ISO's aren't as good as repairing equipment as we are. The reason is evident...they, the OEM's withhold the very material and training as well as parts that would level the playing field with the ISO's. They, the OEM's claim they do this for "Patient Safety". If this was the case they, the OEM's, would release the information and train others and therefore eliminate the "Patient Safety" issue they claim to care so much about.

The OEM's want to control the marketplace and eliminate the very organizations, the ISO's, they hire to provide repair services for their customers. This is restraint of trade plain and simple and Philips will have a lot of explaining to do in court to prove otherwise.

Log inor Register

to rate and post a comment

You Must Be Logged In To Post A Comment