Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited v. The Trizetto Group, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:15-cv-00211
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Syntel Sterling v. The Trizetto Group: Judge Schofield denied reconsideration, leaving TriZetto’s expert price-erosion opinion admissible.
Syntel and TriZetto, particularly their dispute over whether TriZetto expert Thomas W. Britven’s price-erosion damages opinion may be considered.
What happened
In Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited v. The Trizetto Group, Inc., Syntel asked the court to reconsider an earlier order that refused to exclude TriZetto expert Thomas W. Britven’s opinion about price-erosion damages.
Syntel argued that the earlier order was clearly wrong because no evidence showed that Syntel and TriZetto competed in a two-supplier market. Syntel therefore argued that Britven improperly relied on a four-factor legal test and that his opinion should not be admitted.
Judge Schofield denied Syntel’s motion. She ruled that assumptions about the market could affect how much weight the opinion receives, but not whether it may be admitted, and that competitors’ products might not be acceptable substitutes for customers seeking TriZetto’s product features.
The detailed version
- Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited v. The Trizetto Group, Inc. · No. 1:15-cv-00211
- Lorna Schofield
- June 9, 2025
Background
Syntel sought reconsideration of the court’s June 3, 2025, order denying Syntel’s first motion in limine. A motion in limine asks the court to exclude evidence before trial. The earlier motion sought to exclude the price-erosion damages opinion of TriZetto’s expert, Thomas W. Britven.
Britven’s opinion relied on the four-factor test from Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, Inc. to address causation. The opinion states that the test’s second factor considers whether there were acceptable noninfringing substitutes.
Syntel’s Argument
Syntel argued that the earlier order clearly erred by referring to a two-supplier market because, in Syntel’s view, no evidence supported the conclusion that Syntel and TriZetto competed in such a market. Syntel argued that this made Britven’s reliance on the Panduit test improper and made his price-erosion opinion inadmissible.
The court described reconsideration as subject to a strict standard. It generally requires an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. The court also stated that reconsideration is not a vehicle for relitigating old issues or presenting arguments that could have been raised earlier.
Ruling
The court held that Britven’s price-erosion opinion was admissible despite the earlier order’s reference to a two-supplier market. The court explained that factual assumptions about the market generally affect the weight of expert testimony—the importance or persuasive force a factfinder gives it—rather than its admissibility.
The court further explained that the existence of competitors does not necessarily establish the existence of acceptable substitutes. Competitors’ products may lack the advantages of TriZetto’s product, and whether an alternative is acceptable may depend on the needs and preferences of individual customers. The court stated that TriZetto could therefore attempt to show that it faced a de facto two-supplier market for customers who preferred its product’s features and whose business was lost to Syntel.
Judge Schofield ordered that Syntel’s motion to reconsider was denied.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.