© 2024 MRIPETCTSOURCE All rights reserved.
You’re getting ready to sign a long-term OEM equipment service contract for your medical imaging equipment, but predicting exactly how the OEM will deliver service years from now may seem like an impossible task. Additionally, nondisclosure agreements and strict contractual privacy clauses make it difficult to benchmark your terms against those of similar hospitals, imaging centers, and healthcare organizations.
This article is part of our imaging center resources and aims to set your organization up for success the moment you draft the agreement for your next MRI, CT, or PET scanner. In this article series, we offer real solutions that help boost operational efficiency and reduce the cost to operate medical imaging equipment to help you deliver better care for your patients.
Below are the 10 terms every OEM service contract must cover or address, but first let’s set the stage with some examples of recent OEM vs ISO cases in the medical imaging industry that has shaped our current healthcare environment.
The case summaries that follow are based solely on publicly available court records and reporting. They are presented for informational purposes in a neutral and objective manner and do not constitute legal conclusions or allegations of wrongdoing. Readers should verify all details with the original sources.
In this landmark antitrust decision, ISO’s alleged that Kodak refused to sell parts for its products to ISO’s and their customers, effectively creating or maintaining a monopoly in aftermarket parts and service. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision held that a OEM’s refusal to deal in parts could, under certain circumstances, support an antitrust claim even if the OEM lacked power in the primary equipment market. This case remains frequently cited in litigation involving OEM control over parts, service documentation, and aftermarket competition for medical imaging equipment.
Phillips asserted claims under the defend trade secrets act, DMCA, CFAA, and related theories alleging unauthorized access to, and use of proprietary materials and software on MRI system by ISO’s. The court issued multiple substantive rulings, including partial grants of summary judgment in Philips’ favor on certain CFAA, DMCA, and fraud claims, while addressing statute of limitations and other defenses on remaining claims. The case was terminated in March 2025. It forms part of the continuing series of disputes over access to service software and technical information on advanced medical imaging platforms.
Philips pursued DMCA, CFAA, trade-secret, and related claims alleging that the ISO defendants circumvented technological protection measures and accessed proprietary software on imaging systems (including interventional X-ray, cath-lab and CT systems). After a multi-week jury trial, the jury found liability on certain DMCA and CFAA claims (with associated damages awards) but rejected trade-secret misappropriation claims. The jury also found in favor of the defendants on a North Carolina unfair-and-deceptive-trade-practices counterclaim related to Philips’s provision of documents, programs, or information needed for service; the court later trebled those damages. Post-trial motions and appeals have addressed damages, liability findings, and related issues. The mixed verdict has been widely noted in industry discussions of right-to-repair and OEM vs ISO competition.
Philips asserted DMCA, CFAA, trade-secret, copyright, and related claims alleging unauthorized access to and modification of software on ultrasound systems. The defendants filed extensive counterclaims, including antitrust claims characterizing Philips’s litigation and business practices as an “abusive” litigation campaign to maintain a service monopoly. In 2024 the court granted Philips’s motion to dismiss the antitrust counterclaims (and certain declaratory-judgment and copyright-misuse claims) while allowing other counterclaims to proceed. The case continues to illustrate the interplay between IP-enforcement theories and antitrust defenses in the medical-imaging service market.
This was the third case filed in the 2019 wave of Philips suits asserting DMCA, CFAA, and related claims against an independent service organization and associated individuals, alleging modification of files or use of tools to gain unlicensed access to service software and features on Philips imaging equipment. The parties resolved the matter by stipulation, resulting in dismissal.
In a parallel DMCA-focused action, Philips alleged that the defendants circumvented technological protection measures, modified copyright management information, misappropriated trade secrets, and engaged in related trademark and false-advertising conduct in connection with unauthorized enabling of software features on Philips ultrasound systems. After the defendants failed to defend, the court entered a substantial default judgment in Philips’s favor (including damages, fees, and costs). The case forms part of Philips’s 2019 series of enforcement actions against ISOs and related entities.
GE Medical Systems pursued copyright infringement claims against independent service organizations, including R Squared, relating to diagnostic software used on CT scanners (and related Technicare systems). The litigation involved counterclaims of antitrust violations. The matters settled, public reports indicate the settlements included licensing arrangements for certain basic/operating software while restricting use of advanced diagnostic software and included permanent injunctions against unauthorized use of specific GE programs. These cases represent early examples of OEMs relying on intellectual-property theories to regulate third-party access to service tools on imaging equipment.
An independent service organization sued Siemens alleging antitrust violations, including claims that Siemens interfered with independent service of its x-ray equipment through policies on parts sales, warranty practices, and tying of parts to service contracts. Drawing in part on the Kodak framework, the case produced mixed procedural results: certain antitrust claims faced statute-of-limitations and summary-judgment challenges, while some tortious-interference claims proceeded further. It is one of the relatively uncommon instances of an ISO affirmatively litigating against a major imaging OEM under antitrust theories in the post-Kodak era.
Medical imaging equipment and service contracts contain exclusivity clauses that may:
The result is hospitals and imaging centers often get caught in the crossfire with higher OEM pricing (often 2 or 3 times ISO rates), restrictive multi-year contracts, and legal risk to ISOs that circumvent service software restrictions to perform service. This leaves imaging centers with limited choice, inflated costs, and vulnerable if OEMs delay or refuse cooperation.
We believe medical imaging equipment and service contracts should protect your investment for the lifetime of the products, ensure you retain ownership with full access to your equipment at all times, and most importantly, should protect your imaging facility from as many (predictable/unforeseen) events as possible. This is not a generic list, it’s a list I have compiled from years of personal experience dealing with medical imaging contracts, service, disputes, etc. I hope you find this helpful!
Golden Rule: ALL terms are negotiable and should be in your favor or you don’t sign. There are always 5+ other OEMs that would be happy to accommodate your desired terms and get you the medical imaging equipment you need.
Many MRI service agreements include planned maintenance service (PM) at “no cost,” however this typically only applies to work performed between the hours of 8am to 5pm local time. This requires your MRI system to be “down” for about 4 hours (8 patients) every 2 months. That translates to a total of 24 hours total “down time” per year, or 48 missed patients.
And what if you want outside service of contracted 8am to 5pm hours? Well, now you’re paying an overtime or afterhours fee. Avoid this simple oversight, that could cost your imaging facility tens of thousands of dollars, by including terms that allow you to schedule PM service outside of your normal operating hours without upcharge.
On the same token, if your parts, or imaging system, are under warranty coverage it is important to include provisions for timely repair during part or system failure that could lead to system down time.
Think back to what the service environment was like during covid:
The last thing you want when your system is down is to have to pay additional overtime fees, on top of your missed revenue due to part failure.
With so much controversy going on with right to repair in the medical imaging space, it’s important for hospitals and imaging centers to secure lifetime access to service documentation, service manuals, and operator manuals for the life of the MRI system (both digital and hard copy rights).
The true leaders in the MRI space have been absolutely great in making service documentation, service methods, and operator training resources widely available for the benefit of the medical imaging community, while other less reputable MRI manufacturers have allegedly locked imaging centers out of system service portals during service or contractual issues. While it may seem internal policy and contractual minimums dictate accessibility to software, manuals, and documentation at this time, it is litigation that will eventually determine the limits to access. Stay ahead of the curve by securing lifetime rights to all software, service manuals, operator manuals, and digital and hard copy resources.
Once the system is completely paid for, it should belong to the owner. Prevent OEM lockouts with one simple clause in your contract that bars them from tampering with your software, site security and patient information.
2 to 4 hour service response times are the industry standard with 98% to 99% uptime guaranteed. Service and parts delivery should be expedient and efficient with all delays properly communicated. Your contract should reflect or beat the industry standard and account for daily liquidated damages for downtime in excess of stated contractual obligations. Additionally, your imaging facility should maintain rights to source your preferred third party servicer if contractual minimums cannot be met.
Including “Use of any qualified ISO will not void warranty, terminate support, or restrict parts/software access” or a variation thereof in your terms directly counters OEM-style service and parts lock-ins.
Including “OEM must sell all consumables, parts, test kits, and calibration tools to customer, or the ISO hired by customer, at fair-market prices” or a variation thereof restricts OEM’s from choosing your “authorized servicer,” helping you maintain control of uptimes.
Unrestricted access to full software, system passwords, and future updates without additional licensing or “hacking” risk. DMCA repair exemption may already apply but adding this explicitly outlines your unrestricted use to the system your imaging center purchased.
OEM must deliver all technical manuals, service bulletins, and training materials upon request. There shall be no “timely or unhindered” delays or related exclusivity clauses.
Using an ISO should not void equipment warranty, OEM should remain liable for all OEM equipment defects, and ISO liability should be capped at contract value only.
Transparent pricing tables should outline rates at all service hours, including overtime, holidays, and emergency on-site service. Equipment and service contracts should not contain auto-renew clauses, and grant user termination rights if pricing changes.
Equipment owners should own all machine data and system logs. OEM’s may claim system diagnostic data is proprietary, thereby allowing methods of transmitting data with or without the equipment owners knowledge. OEM remote access should require explicit prior approval for each instance of packet transmission and should not be used to block access by ISOs, or monitor ISO activity in any way.
Have you ever wondered why contracted customers never sue OEMS in federal court? The answer is arbitration clauses. Equipment and service contracts may contain clauses that restricts your rights to file in state and federal courts. Ensure your contract terms retain rights to arbitration, while allowing for litigation through state and federal courts at your discretion.
Most importantly, include rights to audit all products and services for OEM compliance. This should be obvious but it is often excluded from service contracts.
The main advantage a medical imaging service contract offers is priority service. Beyond that, there often isn’t much guaranteed, so it’s important to make sure the contract actually protects your investment. The goal is to keep the MRI working for you long-term, not to end up locked into the OEM for the entire life of the system.
That starts with retaining your rights to flexibility. You want the freedom to source parts from any qualified vendor, without being restricted by proprietary key codes or serialization that force you back to the OEM. It’s also important to build in an escape hatch: if the OEM can’t meet the agreed response time, you should have the clear right to bring in a third-party service provider immediately.
Coverage details matter more than people expect. Make sure the contract explicitly includes major components and events (things like quenches, chillers, compressors, coldheads, and helium usage) with a guaranteed minimum reimbursement. If it’s not clearly written in, don’t assume it’s covered.
Before signing anything, take the time to go line by line. Bringing in a lawyer and/or an experienced imaging consultant can make a real difference during negotiations.
There are well-documented patterns to watch for. For example, OEMs often won’t replace components until they fully fail. A coldhead causing high helium boil-off might get “serviced” repeatedly but not replaced, especially once they know you’re nearing the end of the contract. That can leave you with higher costs and a degraded system when transitioning to an independent service provider, so require documented proof that all components meet OEM specs at handover.
It’s also worth being aware of broader healthcare industry realities. Court records have shown cases where OEM service teams used delay tactics, non-cooperation, or pressure strategies that increased costs for providers. At the same time, service rates can run from $700 to $1,500 per hour with high minimum charges, and response times don’t always match what’s promised. Ongoing legal battles around service rights have also affected how much control providers have over their own equipment. This is something that can ultimately impact operational efficiency, cost to provide care and quality of patient care.
Quick Navigation Links
Author:
Author Bio:
Read more on Larry’s author page.
The information provided by MRIPETCTSOURCE (“we,” “us,” or “our”) on https://www.medicalimagingsource.com (the “Site”) is for general informational purposes only. All information on the Site is provided in good faith, however we make no representation or warranty of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, adequacy, validity, reliability, availability, or completeness of any information on the Site. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE SHALL WE HAVE ANY LIABILITY TO YOU FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE OF ANY KIND INCURRED AS A RESULT OF THE USE OF THE SITE OR RELIANCE ON ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THE SITE. YOUR USE OF THE SITE AND YOUR RELIANCE ON ANY INFORMATION ON THE SITE IS SOLELY AT YOUR OWN RISK.
Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.
Meta Boxes
Did you know PET Scans integrate space exploration technology to detect cancers in the human…
Home Learning Hub MRI MRI Patient Resources Tattoo in MRI: Burn Risks Many patients worry…
Many patients worry that their braces will cause issues with their MRI scan. This article…
A UCI research team pioneered X-ray-induced acoustic computed tomography (XACT), a novel imaging modality that…
Home Learning Hub MRI MRI Patient Resources MRI-Safe Jewelry: What’s Actually Safe to Wear? Welcome…
Home Learning Hub MRI MRI Patient Resources MRI Laser Positioning: Why MRI Scanners Use Class…