Motorola, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corporation et al

Filing 459

ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG SDI CO, LTD.S AND SAMSUNG SDI AMERICA, INC.S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON MOTOROLAS CLAIMS 6306 in case 3:07-md-01827-SI; 411 in case 3:09-cv-05840-SI (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 9/22/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

IN RE: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST
LITIGATION
/

Case No. C 09-5840 SI

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

No. M 07-1827 SI
MDL. No. 1827

This Order Relates to:

ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG SDI CO,
LTD.’S AND SAMSUNG SDI AMERICA,
INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT ON MOTOROLA’S
CLAIMS

Motorola Mobility, Inc v AU Optronics
Corporation, et al., C 09-5840 SI

13

/

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Currently before the Court is the motion by Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. and Samsung SDI America,
Inc. (collectively, “SDI”) for summary judgment on plaintiff Motorola Mobility’s Sherman Act, breach
of contract, and unjust enrichment claims. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court found this
matter suitable for disposition without oral argument. Having considered the parties’ papers, and for
good cause appearing, the Court hereby DENIES SDI’s motion.1
SDI contends that Motorola’s Sherman Act, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment
claims—its first, seventeenth, and eighteenth claims, respectively—should be dismissed because there
is no evidence that it conspired to fix the prices of the TFT-LCD modules it sold to Motorola.
When concerted price-fixing is alleged, the plaintiff bears the burden of presenting sufficient
evidence to prove that an agreement to fix prices existed. See, e.g., In re Citric Acid Litig., 191 F.3d
1090, 1093 (9th Cir. 1999); Sun Microsystems Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc., 622 F. Supp. 2d 890,
896 (9th Cir. 2009). To survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must establish that there is a genuine
1

The parties do not dispute that Motorola’s breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims
depend on the viability of Motorola’s Sherman Act claim. Thus, in denying SDI’s motion, all three of
Motorola’s claims survive summary judgment.

issue of material fact as to whether defendants entered into an illegal conspiracy that caused plaintiff

2

to suffer a cognizable injury. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587

3

(1986). A plaintiff can establish a genuine issue of material fact by producing either direct evidence of

4

a defendant’s price-fixing conduct or circumstantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could

5

conclude the same. In re Citric Acid Litig., 191 F.3d at 1093; see also Sun Microsystems, 622 F. Supp.

6

2d at 896 (citing Movie 1 & 2 v. United Artists Commc’ns, 909 F.2d 1245, 1251-52 (9th Cir. 1990);

7

United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 384 U.S. 127, 142-43 (1966)). The Ninth Circuit “has outlined a

8

two-part test to be applied whenever a plaintiff rests it case entirely on circumstantial evidence.” Id. at

9

1094. “First, the defendant can ‘rebut an allegation of conspiracy by showing a plausible and justifiable

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

reason for its conduct that is consistent with proper business practice.’ The burden then shifts back to

11

the plaintiff to provide specific evidence tending to show that defendant was not engaging in permissible

12

competitive behavior.” Id. (internal citations omitted); see also In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484

13

F. Supp. 2d 1059, 1972 (9th Cir. 2007).

14

Despite SDI’s attempt to offer “plausible and justifiable reasons” for many of its alleged

15

communications with competitors, the Court finds that Motorola has provided evidence tending to show

16

that SDI conspired with its competitors to artificially inflate the prices of LCD modules. See id. at 1093.

17

SDI does not dispute that there is evidence demonstrating its alleged price-fixing communications with

18

Epson regarding LCD modules the companies sold to their common customer, Nokia. See Motion at

19

29 (citing SDI’s discovery responses where it “admitt[ed] that in the period of 2004 to 2006, certain

20

employees of [] SDI discussed LCD market information with certain employees of Epson/SEID,

21

including on occasion price or volume information regarding certain Nokia projects”). Instead, SDI

22

argues that there is no link between this evidence and Motorola’s obligation to establish the elements

23

of its Sherman Act claim as to SDI. SDI asserts that its competitor communications with Epson

24

provides no evidentiary basis to prove that it “knew of and intended to participate in any conspiracy

25

affecting Motorola.” Id. at 28. While it may be correct that Motorola lacks direct evidence of

26

“exchanges between SDI and any competitor regarding LCD supplier pricing information for Motorola

27

projects,” the Court finds that there is ample circumstantial evidence from which a reasonable jury could

28

infer that SDI knowingly participated in the overarching price-fixing conspiracy. See Continental Ore
2

1

Co v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., 370 U.S. 690, 699 (1962) (“Plaintiffs should be given the full

2

benefit of their proof without tightly compartmentalizing the various factual components and wiping the

3

slate clean after scrutiny of each. The character and effect of a conspiracy are not to be judged by

4

dismembering it and viewing its separate parts, but only by looking at it as a whole.”).
Next, SDI contends that the “Nokia evidence” cannot establish that SDI caused Motorola’s

6

alleged antitrust injuries. SDI argues that because the “LCD modules that [it] . . . provided to its

7

customers, including Nokia and Motorola, were customized and not interchangeable,” its

8

communications with Epson related to Nokia projects could not have affected the prices of the LCD

9

modules it sold to Motorola. Motion at 31. Motorola has presented evidence to the contrary. For

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

5

example, based on “shared market fundamentals,” Motorola’s damages expert Dr. Bernheim has opined

11

that the overall market prices for small-screen LCDs were largely correlated with the defendants’ small-

12

screen LCD sales prices. See Declaration of Nathanial J. Wood, Ex. 98 (rebuttal expert report of Dr.

13

Bernheim). Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Motorola, the Court concludes that there

14

are triable issues of fact regarding whether SDI’s pricing to Nokia affected its pricing to Motorola.

15
16

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES SDI’s motion for summary judgment.
Master Docket No. 6306; Docket No. 411 in 09-5840.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated: September 22, 2012
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3