Epic and Particle Health’s clash of words has taken the shape of court appeals as the startup attempts to keep things moving in its antitrust case.

In September, Particle, a health IT firm, sued Epic in South New York, claiming that the firm is attempting to monopolize the market for electronic health records. Particle is an API-based data platform having access to the medical records of over 300 million people, aggregating medical data for digital health enterprises. When it comes to electronic health record systems, industry powerhouse Epic has a 36% share of the hospital industry. 

The plaintiffs in Particle’s lawsuit argued that the company had begun offering its services to payers as of last year, allowing so-called “pay-viders” to obtain patients’ records for “secondary” purposes related to health insurance, such as population health statistics or claims processing, as permitted by HIPAA and the regulations of health information networks. 

The 81-page lawsuit asserts that Epic participated in anticompetitive and monopolistic acts by using its control over electronic health records to establish a dominant position in the emerging payer platform industry.

Late in December, Epic Systems requested that a district judge dismiss Particle’s antitrust case, stating that the startup failed to properly demonstrate that the EHR firm engaged in anticompetitive behavior.

Next, on January 9th, Particle rebutted Epic’s assertions that it is limiting competitiveness in the payer interoperability market with a 46-page argument.

“This case is about Epic’s unlawful and widespread campaign to eliminate competition in the payer-platform market. As alleged in the complaint, Epic has targeted Particle—an innovative start-up improving accessibility and affordability in healthcare—because it has threatened Epic’s chokehold over payer-platforms, which it was previously able to impose and maintain due its dominance over electronic health records,” the company said.

Epic, according to Particle, has used a number of unethical tactics to achieve this, such as repeatedly making disparaging claims and threatening Particle’s customers with legal action until they discontinue doing business with Epic. 

Epic said in its December petition to dismiss that Particle did not properly articulate an antitrust claim as it did not adequately claim anticompetitive behavior on the part of Epic and did not establish a relevant antitrust product market.

Particle refuted that claim in its reply, stating that Epic’s assertions regarding market classification were highly fact-dependent, overlooked properly presented allegations, and had no connection to the criteria required for defining a relevant market in legal pleadings.

In its January 9 response to the motion to dismiss, Particle argued that its seventy-eight-page complaint systematically outlined how a dominant company, eager to maintain control, was prepared to eliminate an innovator with a demonstrably superior product for financial gain. The company asserted that while Epic could justify its actions at the appropriate stage, it had provided no valid reason for dismissing the complaint at that moment. Therefore, Particle maintained that the motion should be rejected.

Leave a Reply