XimpleWare, Corp v. Versata Software, Inc. et al

Filing 77

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 59 Motion to Dismiss (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 3/14/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

13
14
15
16

ORDER RE VERSATA DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff,

11
12

No. C 13-05160 SI

XIMPLEWARE CORP.,

v.
VERSATA SOFTWARE INC.; TRILOGY
SOFTWARE INC.; TRILOGY
DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.;
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL, INC.; AND
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants.

/

17
The motion by defendants Versata Software, Inc., Trilogy Development Group, Inc., and Aurea
18
Software Inc. (collectively, “the Versata defendants”) to dismiss plaintiff XimpleWare Corporation’s
19
claims of direct and contributory copyright infringement, violation of the Lanham Act, breach of
20
contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, intentional
21
interference with prospective economic advantage, unfair competition, and declaratory relief, made in
22
the First Amended Complaint, came on for hearing on March 14, 2014.
23
For the reasons articulated by the parties in their briefing and for the reasons stated and discussed
24
at the hearing, the Court finds that the First Amended Complaint adequately states claims for direct and
25
contributory copyright infringement, violation of the Lanham Act, breach of contract,

unjust

26
enrichment, unfair competition, and declaratory relief. To that extent, i.e. as to claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8
27
and 9, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.
28

1

As to claim 5, the Court finds that the allegations in the First Amended Complaint do not support

2

the application of California law with respect to the claim for breach of the implied covenant of good

3

faith and fair dealing. Since under Texas law no such claim could be stated under the circumstances

4

presented here (see City of Midland v. O’Bryant, 18 S.W.3d 209k, 215 (Tex. 2000)), the motion to

5

dismiss claim 5 is GRANTED.

6

As to claim 7, the Court finds that the allegations in the First Amended Complaint do not

7

sufficiently allege the existence of economic relationships between plaintiff and third parties which

8

carry the probability of future economic benefit to plaintiff. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss claim

9

7 is GRANTED.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

Since the complaint has already been amended, and since two separate motions to dismiss have
now been ruled on, the Court declines to allow further leave to amend at this time.
The Versata defendants’ answers must be filed no later than March 28, 2014.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
Dated: March 14, 2014
16
17
SUSAN ILLSTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2