The opinion of the court was delivered by: Irenas , Senior District Judge:
Presently before the Court are four motions for reconsideration of three partial summary judgment opinions. ( See Dkt. Nos. 440, 442, 443, 446) In addition, Avaya moves to certify an interlocutory appeal. ( See Dkt. No. 434) For the following reasons, the motions will be denied.
This case involves the Defendants' access to proprietary maintenance software that Plaintiff Avaya, Inc. ("Avaya") and its predecessors developed and embedded in complex telephony systems that they designed, manufactured, and sold. *fn1 (Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts Vol. I ("SUMF") ¶¶ 1, 7) There are two types of telecommunications systems: (1) "Private Branch Exchange" systems, also known as "PBX" systems; and (2) "Predictive Dialing System" platforms, also known as "PDS" platforms.
PBX systems are telephone switching systems containing hardware, firmware, and software. PBX systems are used by mid-to-large sized companies and other enterprises to connect their voice communications to the public voice networks. (Fourth Amended Complaint ¶ 16) Avaya manufactures, sells, and services PBX systems. According to Counterclaimants, the PBX systems manufactured, sold, and serviced by Avaya and its predecessors are commonly referred to as the "Definity" platform. (Counterclaims ¶ 1) Other manufacturers currently produce and sell competing PBX systems. ( Id. ¶¶ 1, 37)
PDS platforms are hardware and software systems that "automate dialing and increase dialing efficiency by predicting call outcomes based upon a number of factors." ( Id. ¶ 50) In 1999, Avaya's predecessor, Lucent, acquired a company that manufactured and sold PDS. *fn2 After the acquisition, Lucent began to manufacture and sell the PDS platform. ( Id. ¶ 52) As a result of its spinoff from Lucent, Avaya took over the manufacture and sales of the PDS platform. ( Id. ¶ 57)
Avaya initiated this action on June 2, 2006 by filing a complaint against Telecom Labs, Inc. ("TLI"), Continuant, Inc. ("Continuant"), and TeamTLI.com Corp. ("Team"), asserting ten causes of action alleging, among other things, that TLI, Team, and Continuant gained unauthorized access to Avaya systems. (Dkt. No. 1)
On September 21, 2009, Defendants ultimately counterclaimed with 13 causes of action: (1) monopolization in the private branch exchange ("PBX") market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act; (2) attempted monopolization in the PBX market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act; (3) tying PBX maintenance and patches in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; (4) tying PBX maintenance and upgrades in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; (5) monopolization in the PDS market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act; (6) attempted monopolization in the PDS market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act; (7) tying PDS maintenance and patches in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; (8) typing PDS maintenance and upgrades in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; (9) illegal conspiracy in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; (10) tortious interference with business/contractual relations; (11) tortious interference with prospective business or economic advantage; (12) injurious falsehood/trade libel or slander; and (13) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
In Opinions and Orders dated January 25, 2012, Judge Brown denied Avaya's motion for summary judgment on Counterclaimants' first through ninth counts except to the extent that the third count alleged "tying as to SS (Software Support) and patches" and the fourth count alleged "tying of PBX upgrades and maintenance." ( See Opinion at 33-34, Dkt. No. 430) Judge Brown further granted Avaya's motions for summary judgment on counterclaimants' tenth through thirteenth counts. ( See Dkt. Nos. 427, 429) On April 20, 2012, this case was reassigned to this Court.
A motion for reconsideration may be granted on the ground that (1) an intervening change in the controlling law has occurred; (2) evidence not previously available has become available; or (3) vacating the Order is necessary to correct a clear error of law or manifest injustice. North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co. , 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995). The parties argue that Judge Brown's Opinions contain clear errors of law or fact.
Both Avaya and Counterclaimants have each filed two separate motions for reconsideration that attack various holdings of Judge Brown's three Opinions granting in part and denying in part ...