The judge authorizes the epic antitrust combination of going ahead

Diving brief:

• A federal judge rejected several complaints in the large -scale antitrust trial against the giant of the EPIC electronic health file on Friday, but allowed other allegations to continue the health of startup particles.
• Last year, the particles continued the DSE supplier, arguing that Epic had used its large market share to crush competition in the tools for payers. Epic filed a request for rejection of the complaint in December.
• The judge agreed with Epic out of five of the nine complaints, rejecting the affirmations of Particle according to which the seller had maintained a conspiracy to maintain his domination of the market, as well as the allegations of defamation and commercial defamation. However, the court refused to throw three federal antitrust complaints and the allegation of the party that Epic had interfered with a commercial contract.

Diving insight:

Particle, a startup founded in 2018 in order to help health care organizations to share and analyze data, deposited its trials in September 2024 in the South New York district.

The company argued that Epic used its position as a major DSE supplier to develop and control the market for payers platforms, or tools that allow insurers to request and access a large number of medical records as well as analyzes.

Last spring, Epic filed a complaint with Carequality interoperability framework, claiming that particles allowed its customers to inappropriately label their data requests and hide the identity of organizations requiring files, according to the trial.

The seller has also stopped responding to the DSE requests of 34 particles customers and introduced a new policy for particle users who forced them to provide “in -depth information” not required for other organizations, said Particle in the complaint.

This meant that the integration time for new customers has skyrocketed less than two days to more than a month in some cases, depending on the costume. The startup said that the dispute on the healthcare company as well as other EPIC actions and declarations to its customers “have frightened” potential particles.

But Epic moved last year to completely reject the prosecution, arguing that particle had not determined the existence of a market of relevant products and could not Plausibly claim that the seller has engaged in anti -competitive driving.

However, the judge noted that the particles were fairly well proven that there is a market for specific tools for payers and that insurers cannot easily turn to other software to recover medical records.

“It remains to be seen whether the particles will be able to establish a deliberate acquisition of the market power in the discovery,” wrote Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in the order on Friday. “However, at this stage of the dispute, the particles identified sufficient conduct to increase non -specialized inference according to which EPIC actions were not profitable and incompatible with the rational behavior of a legitimate competitor.”

An epic spokesperson for a statement said on Friday that the company was impatiently awaiting “the possibility of presenting evidence to prevail over the remaining complaints”.

The particles applauded the decision in a declaration on Saturday. CEO Jason Prestinario saying that he was “very satisfied” with the result, noting that the court had not rejected the monopolization of the startup, the attempted monopolization and monopoly by drawing complaints against Epic.

“While some of the complaints did not survive, the EPIC request in dismissal was rejected in the 3 of the main monopolization of antitrust complaints,” he said. “It is the first time in the history of Epic that an antitrust case against them has come to this point.”