This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P manufactures radiation detection instruments and offers radiation monitoring systems. It manufactures high-purity germanium detectors and cryostats, which is a device that can be used on radiation detectors in order to maintain extremely low temperatures. The germanium crystal inside a high-purity germanium detector needs to be kept at a temperature of about negative 296 degrees Fahrenheit. The most efficient way to keep that low temperature is with a hybrid cooler in a closed system with a container of liquid nitrogen, which, as it evaporates, is condensed by a cryocooler. P produces and sells a hybrid cooler called the Canberra Cryo-Cycle II. D manufactures CryoTel GT cryocoolers. A cryocooler is a small electrical device that performs a cooling function in certain kinds of radiation detectors, including high-purity germanium detectors. D is owned by AMETEK, Inc. ORTEC, Inc., which is owned by AMETEK, competes with D. Each has nearly a 50% share of the market for high-purity germanium detectors that use hybrid coolers. P and D entered into a Supply Agreement for cryocoolers. The per-unit cost of the cryocoolers would be $9,835. For orders of 1 to 10 cryocoolers, D agreed to make delivery in 6 weeks. For quantities greater than 10 cryocoolers, the parties would determine a mutually agreeable delivery schedule. The cryocoolers came with a two-year warranty. Prior to the signing of the Supply Agreement P and D agreed to a delivery forecast. The schedule accommodated P's transition away from Lihan and provided D with time to increase production in order to meet P's supply-demand. P submitted a purchase order for 250 CryoTel GT units for $2.65 million. The purchase order was based upon P's forecast that it would need 250 units over the next 18 months. D emailed a letter to P in which D elected not to enter into the proposed Supply Agreement. P submitted a purchase order for 250 CryoTel GT units for $2.65 million. The purchase order was based upon P's forecast that it would need 250 units over the next 18 months. D emailed a letter to P in which D elected not to enter into the proposed Supply Agreement. D rejected the Agreement and the purchase order. P objected to the purported rejection. Legal counsel for D withdrew the purported notice of rejection. D them exercised its contractual right to terminate the Supply Agreement with six months' notice. Under the Agreement, D was obligated to fill purchase orders placed prior to the effective date of termination, January 7, 2018. P delivered a revised purchase order for 250 cryocoolers. D refused to fill the order. P sued D. P continues to obtain cryocoolers from Lihan. According to P, Lihan's cryocoolers still suffer from a reliability problem, and P and Lihan continue to work together to address that problem. Mirion also has had discussions with Thales. But their lead time is 18 months because of R&D issues. The cost and the per-unit price point continue to be an obstacle with Thales.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.