MedioStream, Inc. v. MPEG. LA, LLC
Filing
50
ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 25 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
MEDIOSTREAM, INC.,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
v.
MPEG LA, L.L.C.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 5:10-CV-05979 LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS WITHOUT LEAVE TO
AMEND
16
17
Pending before the court is Defendant MPEG LA, L.L.C.’s (“MPEG LA”) motion to
18
dismiss Plaintiff MedioStream Inc.’s (“MedioStream”) Complaint. For the reasons discussed
19
below, MPEG LA’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED without leave to amend.
20
I. BACKGROUND
21
On December 30, 2010, MedioStream filed its Complaint alleging the following facts:
22
MedioStream is a company that develops technology for MPEG-2 encoding and decoding video
23
and audio and related consumer applications. Compl. ¶¶ 7-12. MPEG LA is the “Licensing
24
Administrator” for numerous “Licensors” that own and have the right to license one or more
25
patents necessary for compliance with the MPEG-2 Standard (referred to as “MPEG-2 Essential
26
Patents”). Id. ¶ 13. The Licensors committed to make available licenses and/or sublicenses under
27
any and all MPEG-2 Essential Patents licensable or sub-licensable by the Licensor to any entity
28
desiring such a license or sublicense on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms and
1
Case No.: 5:10-CV-05979 LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND
1
conditions. Id. On January 1, 2002, MedioStream entered into a MPEG-2 Patent Portfolio License
2
agreement with MPEG-LA as the authorized Licensing Administrator for MPEG-2 Essential
3
Patents. Id. Under Section 6.1 of the agreement, MedioStream has the right to renew the
4
agreement for successive five-year periods for the life of the portfolio, subject to reasonable
5
amendment of the royalty terms and rates. Id. ¶ 15.
6
MedioStream elected to renew the license agreement pursuant to Section 6.1. Id. ¶ 16.
7
MPEG LA, however, refuses to renew the agreement unless subsections are included or existing
8
subsections are deleted in a manner that would materially change the rights of the parties. Id. ¶¶ 20-
9
21. MedioStream’s license agreement expired on December 31, 2010. Id. ¶ 15.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Based on these allegations, MedioStream asserts two causes of action: (1) pursuant to the
11
Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, MedioStream requests a declaration that “its products remain
12
licensed under MPEG-2 Patent Portfolio License agreement,” id. ¶ 24; and (2) a breach of contract
13
claim alleging that MPEG LA breached the MPEG-2 Patent Portfolio license agreement by
14
refusing to renew or to acknowledge MedioStream’s renewal of the agreement, id. ¶ 29. The
15
Complaint alleges that the court has jurisdiction over the claims “under at least 28 U.S.C. § 1332
16
and the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act.” Id. ¶ 4.
17
On March 30, 2011, MedioStream filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint for lack of
18
subject matter jurisdiction, which was scheduled for oral argument on June 10, 2011 before Judge
19
Jeremy Fogel. ECF No. 10. On April 25, 2011, this case was reassigned to Judge Edward Davila.
20
ECF No. 20. On May 18, 2011, MPEG LA renoticed the motion to dismiss, and the parties
21
stipulated to have the motion heard on September 16, 2011. ECF Nos. 24-25.
22
On August 19, 2011, MedioStream filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), without first
23
obtaining a stipulation from opposing counsel or seeking leave of the Court to do so. ECF No. 28.
24
The FAC included two additional defendants: Sony Corporation and Sony Corporation of America.
25
The FAC also added a claim for declaratory judgment regarding Non-Infringement, Invalidity, and
26
Unenforceability of various patents owned by Sony and administered by MPEG LA. See FAC ¶¶
27
1, 49-52. On August 29, 2011, MedioStream filed an opposition to MPEG LA’s motion to dismiss,
28
requesting leave to file the Amended Complaint and that the court accept it as filed as of August
2
Case No.: 5:10-CV-05979 LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND
1
19, 2011. ECF No. 30. On September 2, 2011, MPEG LA filed its reply brief and objections to
2
MedioStream’s request to file the Amended Complaint. ECF Nos. 36-27. On September 5, 2011,
3
MedioStream filed a sur-reply. ECF No. 40. On September 7, 2011, MPEG LA filed objections to
4
MedioStream’s sur-reply and a request that either the sur-reply be stricken or MPEG LA be
5
permitted to file a sur-surreply. ECF No. 42. Also on September 7, 2011, MedioStream field a
6
request for judicial notice of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in MedImmune, Inc. v.
7
Genenetech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007). ECF No. 45. On September 13, 2011, the motion was
8
taken under submission without oral argument pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). ECF No. 47. On
9
October 17, 2011, the matter was reassigned to the undersigned judge. ECF No. 49.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
11
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), the defendant may move to dismiss
12
because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Similarly, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
13
12(h)(3) provides, “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the
14
court must dismiss the action.” The party invoking federal jurisdiction has the burden of showing
15
that jurisdiction is proper. See Thornhill Publishing Co. v. General Tel. & Electronics Corp., 594
16
F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979). The court presumes a lack of jurisdiction until the party asserting
17
jurisdiction proves otherwise. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375,
18
377 (1994). “Dismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend is not appropriate unless it is
19
clear . . . that the complaint could not be saved by amendment.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon,
20
Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).
21
22
23
III. DISCUSSION
A. MEDIOSTREAM’S SUR-REPLY
Civil Local Rule 7-3(d) provides that “[o]nce a reply is filed, no additional memoranda,
24
papers or letters may be filed without prior Court approval.” MedioStream filed its sur-reply
25
without prior court approval. MPEG LA’s request to strike MedioStream’s sur-reply therefore is
26
GRANTED, and MPEG LA’s request in the alternative that it be permitted to file a sur-surreply is
27
DENIED. See, e.g., Al-Hizbullahi v. Bleisner, C 04-4903 MMC (PR), 2009 WL 1855234, at *1 n.2
28
(N.D. Cal. June 29, 2009).
3
Case No.: 5:10-CV-05979 LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND
1
2
B. MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff’s original complaint, which is the operative pleading, alleges that the court has
3
jurisdiction over the claims “under at least 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and the Federal Declaratory Judgment
4
Act.” Id. ¶ 4. MPEG LA argues this court lacks jurisdiction because the parties are not diverse and
5
that the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act is not an independent basis to establish subject matter
6
jurisdiction. MedioStream has not made any argument to the contrary. Instead, MedioStream
7
argues that the court should grant it leave to amend its Complaint.
8
Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions “between citizens of
9
different states,” where the “matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.” 28 U.S.C.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
§ 1332(a)(1). Diversity jurisdiction does not exist unless the case is one “in which the citizenship
11
of each plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each defendant.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519
12
U.S. 61, 68 (1996). Here, MedioStream stated in its Complaint that it is a California corporation
13
with its principal place of business in Los Altos, California. Compl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 1. Thus,
14
MedioStream is a citizen of California. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). One of MPEG LA’s members is
15
Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc. (“Fujitsu”). Fujitsu was incorporated in California and is
16
headquartered in Richardson, Texas. Decl. of Jean-Phillipe C. Gason ¶ 2, ECF No. 12. Fujitsu
17
therefore is a citizen of California. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). MPEG LA is also a citizen of
18
California because a limited liability company “is a citizen of every state of which its
19
owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899
20
(9th Cir. 2006). Thus, the parties are not diverse, and the court lacks diversity jurisdiction.
21
Additionally, MedioStream’s claim for relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28
22
U.S.C. § 2201(a), does not create federal question jurisdiction. “It is well settled that the
23
Declaratory Judgment Act does not itself confer federal subject matter jurisdiction, but merely
24
provides an additional remedy in cases where jurisdiction is otherwise established.” Staacke v.
25
U.S. Secretary of Labor, 841 F.2d 278, 280 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotations and citations
26
omitted). The Act expressly states that a federal court may grant declaratory relief “[i]n a case . . .
27
within its jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) (emphasis added). “In determining whether a
28
declaratory judgment action presents a federal question, [courts] look either to the defendant’s
4
Case No.: 5:10-CV-05979 LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND
1
threatened action or to the plaintiff’s claim, construed as a complaint for coercive relief.” Yokeno
2
v. Mafnas, 973 F.2d 803, 807 n.2 (9th Cir. 1992).
Under this standard, it is clear that MedioStream’s declaratory judgment action does not
4
raise a federal question. In order to determine whether “MedioStream has properly renewed the
5
license agreement and what terms must be included in the renewed license agreement,” the court
6
must determine the parties’ rights under California contract law. As to a potential lawsuit by
7
MPEG LA, the only rights alleged in the Complaint that MPEG LA could enforce against
8
MedioStream would be contractual rights based on the expired licensing agreement. Although the
9
subject of the contract is patent licensing, the Complaint does not allege that the patents are invalid
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
3
or that MPEG LA owns any of the patents or otherwise has standing to bring a coercive action for
11
patent infringement.1 Thus, state law is determinative of both MedioStream’s request for
12
declaratory judgment and any potential action by MPEG LA against MedioStream, and neither
13
claim presents a federal question.
14
MedioStream has failed to establish that federal subject matter jurisdiction is proper.
15
Accordingly, MPEG LA’s motion to dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
16
is GRANTED.
17
C. REQUEST TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
MedioStream requests the court take judicial notice of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in
MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007). MedioStream’s request for judicial
notice asserts, without further explanation or pincite, that MedImmune is inconsistent with “[t]he
jurisdictional cases relied on by MPEG LA.” ECF No. 16. However, “judicial notice is generally
not the appropriate means to establish the legal principles governing the case.” Toth v. Grand
Trunk R.R., 306 F.3d 335, 349 (6th Cir. 2002). Judicial notice of the MedImmune decision is
unnecessary and is therefore DENIED.
Furthermore, if MedioStream intended to cite MedImmune to support its argument that the
court has subject matter jurisdiction over MedioStream’s request for declaratory judgment, that
comparison is inapposite. In contrast to the facts presented in this case, the petitioner in
MedImmune brought an action against the patent holder seeking a declaration that the patent was
invalid and that no royalties were owing under the license agreement because of patent invalidity
and because of non-infringement. MedImmune, 549 U.S. at 123-24. The Supreme Court held that
the petitioner could establish an Article III case or controversy while continuing to pay royalties
“under protest and with reservation of all [its] rights” Id. at 122. Here, the issue raised by MPEG
LA’s motion is whether MedioStream’s request for relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act
gives rise to federal question question jurisdiction, not whether an Article III case or controversy
exists.
5
Case No.: 5:10-CV-05979 LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND
1
MPEG LA argues that, because this court lacks jurisdiction over the Complaint, this court
2
also lacks jurisdiction to grant MedioStream leave to file its Amended Complaint. MedioStream
3
argues the court should grant its request to amend the Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15.
4
MedioStream does not address how the court can issue such an order without subject matter
5
jurisdiction over the action and does not cite any case suggesting that a federal court that lacks
6
jurisdiction over a Complaint can grant leave to amend that Complaint. MedioStream also has not
7
attempted to distinguish the many cases cited by MPEG LA.
8
“In determining federal court jurisdiction, we look to the original, rather than to the
9
amended, complaint.” Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. California State Bd. of Equalization,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). “Subject matter jurisdiction must exist as of the time the
11
action is commenced.” Id. “If jurisdiction is lacking at the outset, the district court has ‘no power
12
to do anything with the case except dismiss;’” id. (citing 15 C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper,
13
Federal Practice and Procedure § 3844, at 332 (1986), and the court’s subsequent orders, including
14
an order granting leave to amend the complaint would be nullities, id. at 1381.
15
Although 28 U.S.C. § 1653 provides that defective allegations of jurisdiction may be
16
amended, “Section 1653 provides a remedy for defective allegations only; it does not provide a
17
remedy for defective jurisdiction itself.” Morongo Band of Mission Indians, 858 F.2d at 1380 n.2
18
(internal quotation omitted). Where the claim alleged in the original complaint does not “arise
19
under” federal law, the complaint cannot be amended to allege a different claim-the action must be
20
dismissed. Willis v. Tingey, No. CIV 06-0242, 2006 WL 1222967 *2 (E.D. Cal. May 5, 2006)
21
(citing Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (1989)). In other words, where the
22
court lacks jurisdiction over the original complaint, and the proposed amendment “would
23
completely alter the theory of the case, not simply correct a defect in pleading,” granting leave to
24
amend is improper. American Land Title Ass’n v. Great American Ins. Co., No. 05-CV-4365, 2006
25
WL 1329782 *5 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 2006). Here, the proposed FAC seeks to add new defendants,
26
assert new claims, and alter the theory of the case. While the original complaint was based on a
27
breach of contract theory, the proposed FAC seeks to add a claim for declaratory relief establishing
28
patent non-infringement and invalidity. As explained above, the Court lacks subject matter
6
Case No.: 5:10-CV-05979 LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND
1
jurisdiction over the original complaint. Given the jurisdictional defects in the original complaint
2
are not merely defects in allegations, the Court has no jurisdiction to grant MedioStream’s request
3
to amend its Complaint.
4
5
IV. CONCLUSION
MPEG LA’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED without leave to amend, but without
6
prejudice to Plaintiff pursuing its contract claims in state court or pursuing its patent claims in a
7
new federal action. The Clerk shall close the file.
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
Dated: January 24, 2012
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Case No.: 5:10-CV-05979 LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND
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?