Procongps, Inc. v. Star Sensor Technology, LLC., et al.,
Filing
43
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING SKYPATROL LEAVE TO AMEND THIRD COUNTERCLAIM (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 11/29/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
PROCONGPS, INC,
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
No. C 11-3975 SI
Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING
SKYPATROL LEAVE TO AMEND
THIRD COUNTERCLAIM
v.
STAR SENSOR LLC, et al.,
12
Defendants.
/
13
14
Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendant Skypatrol’s third counterclaim is scheduled for a hearing
15
on December 2, 2011. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that the matter is
16
appropriate for resolution without oral argument, and VACATES the hearing. For the reasons set forth
17
below, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion and GRANTS Skypatrol leave to amend. Skypatrol’s
18
amended counterclaim must be filed by December 22, 2011.
19
DISCUSSION
20
21
On August 15, 2011, plaintiff ProconGPS, Inc. filed this lawsuit against several defendants,
22
including defendant Skypatrol, LLC. Plaintiff alleges that defendants are infringing two patents owned
23
by plaintiff.
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff moves to dismiss defendant Skypatrol’s third counterclaim. The third counterclaim for
unfair competition alleges,
On information and belief, Procon has represented and is representing to third parties,
including but not limited to Skypatrol’s existing and prospective customers, that
Skypatrol is going out of business, at least in part due to Procon’s litigation tactics. As
an example, during the week of August 29, 2011, a Procon sales representative called
one of Skypatrol’s existing customers, The Best Choice Inc., and represented multiple
1
2
times that Skypatrol was going out of business and that Skypatrol’s efforts to sell
additional products were aimed at collecting as much money as possible before closing
or going bankrupt. These representations are false.
3
Skypatrol’s Amended Answer and Counterclaims ¶ 71. The third counterclaim also alleges, “[o]n
4
information and belief, Skypatrol has lost at least one customer based on Procon’s representations to
5
third parties that Skypatrol is going out of business.” Id. ¶ 72. In addition, Skypatrol alleges on
6
information and belief that Procon “is asserting patents that are not valid and not infringed,” and that
7
Procon’s conduct constitutes unfair competition under common law, California Business and
8
Professions Code § 17200 et seq., and the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Id. ¶¶ 73-74.
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
I.
Rule 9(b)
11
Plaintiff moves to dismiss defendant’s counterclaim on numerous grounds. First, plaintiff
12
contends that Skypatrol failed to plead the counterclaim with heightened particularity as required by
13
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). Plaintiff argues that Rule 9(b) applies because Skypatrol alleges
14
that Procon falsely misrepresented Skypatrol’s financial condition.
15
counterclaim does not meet the pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) because Skypatrol alleges that
16
unidentified Procon employees made false statements to unidentified third parties at unspecified times.
17
Skypatrol responds that Rule 9(b) does not apply because Skypatrol’s counterclaim does not
18
sound in fraud. Skypatrol asserts that the basis for its counterclaim is that Procon’s false statements are
19
unfair, not that they are fraudulent. Skypatrol also argues that even if Rule 9(b) applies, the
20
counterclaim meets that standard because Skypatrol alleges specific facts about Procon’s
21
misrepresentations to one of Skypatrol’s customers, The Best Choice, Inc.
Plaintiff contends that the
22
The Court agrees with plaintiff that Rule 9(b) applies because Skypatrol’s unfair competition
23
counterclaim is based entirely on the allegation that Procon employees have and continue to falsely
24
represent Skypatrol’s financial condition; there is no other conduct that is alleged to be “unfair.” The
25
Court further finds that, with the exception of the allegations concerning misrepresentations made to The
26
Best Choice, Inc., the counterclaim does not meet Rule 9(b)’s pleading standard. Skypatrol alleges “on
27
information and belief” that Procon is falsely representing to unnamed third parties that Skypatrol is
28
going out of business “at least in part due to Procon’s litigation tactics.” These allegations are too vague
2
1
to provide Procon with notice of the particular misconduct with which it is charged. The Court grants
2
Skypatrol leave to amend to allege more specific details about the alleged misrepresentations. While
3
the Court does not expect Skypatrol to be able to allege the names of the persons who allegedly made
4
the misrepresentations, in order to provide Procon with adequate notice, Skypatrol must allege some
5
information about the person or persons who made the misrepresentations (such as if the person was a
6
sales representative), when the misrepresentations were made, and to whom. In addition, Skypatrol
7
must allege the substance of the false statements, and specify what it means by “at least in part due to
8
Procon’s litigation tactics.”
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
II.
Lanham Act
11
Plaintiff contends that Skypatrol has not stated a claim for unfair competition under the Lanham
12
Act because Skypatrol has not alleged any facts showing that plaintiff acted in bad faith. Plaintiff relies
13
on Zenith Electronics Corporation v. Exzec, Inc., 182 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1999), in which the Federal
14
Circuit held,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[B]efore a patentee may be held liable under § 43(a) for marketplace activity in support
of its patent, and thus be deprived of the right to make statements about potential
infringement of its patent, the marketplace activity must have been undertaken in bad
faith. This prerequisite is a function of the interaction between the Lanham Act and
patent law, and is in addition to the elements required by § 43(a) itself, as § 43(a) alone
does not require bad faith [citations].
Id. at 1353.
The parties dispute whether Skypatrol has alleged “marketplace activity in support of [Procon’s]
patent.” Id. Plaintiff argues that Skypatrol fails to allege that Procon made statements about Skypatrol’s
business outside the context of informing customers of patent infringement, while Skypatrol contends
that Procon’s false statements about Skypatrol’s financial condition and business operations are distinct
from its claims of patent infringement.
The Court concludes that, as currently pled, it is unclear whether Skypatrol’s Lanham Act
counterclaim seeks to hold plaintiff liable for marketplace activity in support of its patent. The Court
agrees with Skypatrol that Procon’s alleged misstatements about Skypatrol going out of business, on
their own, do not constitute marketplace activity in support of Procon’s patent. However, the
3
1
counterclaim alleges that Procon has represented, and is representing that “Skypatrol is going out of
2
business, at least in part due to Procon’s litigation tactics.” Counterclaim ¶ 71. It is unclear what
3
Skypatrol means by “Procon’s litigation tactics.” If Skypatrol is alleging that Procon told third parties
4
that Skypatrol is going out of business because Skypatrol is infringing Procon’s patents, such conduct
5
would appear to constitute “marketplace activity in support of its patent.” Zenith Elecs., 182 F.3d at
6
1353; see id. at 1354 (patent holder’s statement that alleged infringer could not design around patent
7
was marketplace activity in support of patent).
The Court will grant Skypatrol leave to amend to clarify the nature of its Lanham Act
9
counterclaim. In amending this claim, Skypatrol should take care to allege all of the elements of a such
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
8
a claim: “(1) that the defendant . . . made a false or misleading statement of fact in commercial
11
advertising or promotion about the plaintiff’s goods or services; (2) that the statement actually deceives
12
or is likely to deceive a substantial segment of the intended audience; (3) that the deception is material
13
in that it is likely to influence purchasing decisions; (4) that the defendant caused the statement to enter
14
interstate commerce; and (5) that the statement results in actual or probable injury to the plaintiff.”
15
Zenith Elecs., 182 F.3d at 1348. If Skypatrol’s amended counterclaim alleges conduct by Procon in
16
support of its patent such that the bad faith requirement of Zenith applies, Skypatrol must also allege
17
facts in support of its allegation that Procon is asserting patents it knows are not valid and not infringed;
18
it is not sufficient to simply make such an allegation “on information and belief.”
19
20
III.
UCL
21
With regard to the UCL, plaintiff argues that Skypatrol has not alleged any facts depicting any
22
deception of Skypatrol’s customers or any facts to support an inference that plaintiff committed an
23
unfair practice that broke or violated the spirit of antitrust laws. “When a party sues an ostensible
24
competitor under the ‘unfair’ prong of § 17200, the claim may be proven only on the basis of ‘conduct
25
that threatens an incipient violation of an anti-trust law, or violates the policy or spirit of one of those
26
laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law, or otherwise
27
significantly threatens or harms competition.’” Watson Labs, Inc. v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., 178 F.
28
Supp. 2d 1099, 1118 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (quoting Cel–Tech Commn’s, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tel.
4
1
Co., 20 Cal.4th 163, 187 (1999).
Skypatrol contends that under Watson Labs and Cel-Tech it need not allege an antitrust violation,
3
and instead can state a claim under the “unfair” prong by alleging conduct that harms or threatens
4
competition. While Skypatrol is correct in its statement of the law, Skypatrol’s counterclaim does not
5
actually allege that plaintiff’s conduct “significantly threatens or harms competition.” Instead, the
6
counterclaim only alleges that Skypatrol has lost at least one customer based on Procon’s alleged
7
misrepresentations. Harm to a competitor is not the same as harm to competition, and Skypatrol must
8
allege conduct that significantly threatens or harms competition in order to state a claim. Watson Labs,
9
178 F. Supp. 2d at 1118-19. In addition, if Skypatrol’s UCL claim is based on Procon’s marketplace
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
2
activity in support of its patent, Skypatrol must allege facts showing bad faith on the part of Procon.
11
See Zenith Elecs., 182 F.3d at 1355. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion and GRANTS
12
Skypatrol leave to amend.
13
14
IV.
Litigation privilege
15
Plaintiff also contends that Skypatrol’s counterclaim fails because Procon’s alleged
16
misrepresentations are protected by California’s litigation privilege. The litigation privilege, codified
17
at California Civil Code § 47, “applies to any publication required or permitted by law in the course of
18
a judicial proceeding to achieve the objects of the litigation, even though the publication is made outside
19
the courtroom and no function of the court or its officers is involved.” Jacob B. v. County of Shasta,
20
154 P.3d 1003, 1007 (Cal. 2007) (citation omitted). The privilege bars all tort causes of action other
21
than malicious prosecution and applies to any communication “(1) made in judicial or quasi-judicial
22
proceedings; (2) by litigants or other participants authorized by law; (3) to achieve the objects of the
23
litigation; and (4) that have some connection or logical relation to the action.” Silberg v. Anderson, 50
24
Cal.3d 205, 219-220 (1990).
25
In light of the Court’s dismissal of the counterclaim with leave to amend, the Court finds it
26
unnecessary to decide whether the alleged misrepresentations to Skypatrol’s current and potential
27
customers are protected by the litigation privilege. However, the Court notes that “[s]tatements to
28
nonparticipants in the action are generally not privileged under section 47, subdivision (b), and are thus
5
1
actionable unless privileged on some other basis.” Rothman v. Jackson, 49 Cal. App. 4th 1134, 1141
2
(1996). In addition, in order for the litigation privilege to apply, “the communicative act – be it a
3
document filed with the court, a letter between counsel or an oral statement – must function as a
4
necessary or useful step in the litigation process and must serve its purposes.” Id. at 1146. While it is
5
unclear what Skypatrol means by its allegation that Procon has represented that Skypatrol is going out
6
of business “at least in part due to Procon’s litigation tactics,” the other alleged statements – that
7
Skypatrol is going out of business, and that Skypatrol’s efforts to sell additional products were aimed
8
at collecting as much money as possible before closing or going bankrupt – do not function as a
9
necessary or useful step in the process of litigating plaintiff’s claims of patent infringement.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion and GRANTS Skypatrol leave
to amend. The amended counterclaim must be filed by December 22, 2011.
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
17
Dated: November 29, 2011
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?