Edgetech Responds to Glasslam SuitMay 17th, 2011 | Category: Industry News
Edgetech I.G. has filed a 40-page response to the suit filed against it by Glasslam USA (also known as Nebula Glass International Inc.) in late March. The original suit alleged that Edgetech has engaged in defamation, deceptive and unfair trade practices, and breach of contract, among other allegations, and relates overall to Glasslam’s entry into the warm-edge foam spacer market in 2007 with its EPD Air-Tight™ spacer, and Edgetech’s own warm-edge foam Super Spacer® product.
In the response to the suit, Edgetech acknowledges many of the facts of the case, such as that it manufactures a warm-edge spacer that uses an all-foam, no-metal formula that minimizes heat conduction and that the company obtained a sample of Glasslam’s EPDM Air-Tight™ Spacer during the 2007 GlassBuild America Show, but denies allegations that it acted with “anti-competitive conduct” at the time.
Edgetech also denies claims that it pressured suppliers that manufacture raw materials used in foam spacers not to sell to Glasslam. Among the suppliers named in the complaint were Gold Key Processing Ltd. in Middlefield, Ohio, which provides EPDM rubber; two adhesive suppliers, CCT Tapes in Philadelphia and MACtac North America of Stow Ohio; and two silicone suppliers, Dow Corning of Midland, Mich., and Wacker Chemie AG of Lehigh, Pa.
Glasslam had claimed that “Edgetech conspires with trade associations and certification councils to keep Glasslam’s EPDM warm-edge foam spacer from the market.” The company named the Insulating Glass Manufacturers Alliance (IGMA) and the Insulating Glass Manufacturers Association of Canada (IGMAC) specifically.
Glasslam claims that the Insulating Glass Certification Council ruled in May 2008 that “the lack of equivalency between spacers required any window system containing a new spacer system, such as Glasslam’s EPDM Air-Tight foam spacer, to be retested for certification.” Glasslam goes on to allege that this ruling would have required “any window manufacturer who wanted to purchase Glasslam’s product instead of Edgetech’s to obtain a new certification, which included a lengthy and expensive testing process.”
Edgetech also submitted several affirmative defenses to the complaint with its recent response, such as that the suit fails to state a complaint for which relief may be granted, and that “to the extent that Edgetech engaged in any of the conduct alleged in the complaint, its conduct was reasonable, justified, excused, privileged and/or in pursuit of lawful and legitimate business interests.”
The company goes on to allege that “the damages allegedly suffered by Glasslam were not caused in fact by any conduct or act of Edgetech.” Edgetech officials also allege that Glasslam is seeking damages for injury that occurred prior to the applicable limitations period, and that the company’s claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands and estoppel, amidst several other legal doctrines.
Edgetech further claims that Glasslam “has failed to exercise reasonable care and diligence to mitigate its alleged injuries and damages,” and that, if damages do exist, they are “speculative and impossible to ascertain.”
With regard to Glasslam’s claims that it was defamed by Edgetech, the company responds, “Glasslam’s claim for defamation is barred to the extent the alleged statements are true,” and that “the alleged statements [were made] with good motives.”
Edgetech is represented by McDermott Will & Emery LLP, which has offices all over the world.