Good Technology Corporation et al v. MobileIron, Inc.

Filing 349

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LANHAM ACT AND UNFAIR COMPETITION CLAIMS by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting-in-part 195 (psglc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/5/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16

GOOD TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION and )
GOOD TECHNOLOGY SOFTWARE, INC.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
MOBILEIRON, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT ON LANHAM ACT AND
UNFAIR COMPETITION CLAIMS
(Re: Docket No. 195)

Defendant MobileIron, Inc. moves for summary judgment of Plaintiffs Good Technology
17
Corporation and Good Technology Software, Inc.’s Lanham Act and unfair competition claims.
18
Because the court finds that triable issues of fact abound, but only as to Good’s Lanham Act claim,
19
the motion is GRANTED-IN-PART.
20
I.
21
22
23

Good develops and sells mobile data and device management technologies. 1 Good owns
U.S. Patent Nos. 6,151,606, 7,702,322, 7,970,386 and 8,012,219. 2 The ’606 patent teaches
disabling access to data on a mobile device after the user has finished using the data. 3 The ’219

24
25

1

See Docket No. 32 at ¶ 2.

26

2

See id. at ¶¶ 18-21.

27

3

See Docket Nos. 32-1, 32-2.

28

1
Case Nos. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LANHAM ACT
AND UNFAIR COMPETITION CLAIMS

1

patent teaches a server system that can be used to prevent access to data stored on a mobile device

2

through encryption or deletion. 4 The ’386 patent teaches a rules engine on a wireless device that

3

can receive a set of rules from a server and execute the set of rules so as to monitor and take action

4

on the wireless device based on policies. 5 The ’322 patent teaches distribution of software updates

5

for wireless devices that are governed by customer-defined software policies and communicated

6

over the internet. 6 Good’s products include Good for Enterprise, Good for Government, Good

7

Dynamics, BoxTone and AppCentral. 7

8
9

MobileIron is an enterprise mobility management (“EMM”) solutions provider, which
enables companies to secure, control and manage mobile devices, mobile apps and mobile content.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

MobileIron owns U.S. Patent No. 8,359,016, which teaches filtering a catalog of mobile device

11

applications based on a set of policies applied to a user profile and a mobile device profile to select

12

a set of applications to return to the user. 8

13

MobileIron offers two EMM solutions: MobileIron Core and MobileIron Cloud.

14

MobileIron Core is comprised of three primary components: the Core server, the Sentry server and

15

the Mobile@Work client. The Core server enables IT administrators to define security policies and

16

to take actions upon mobile devices, apps and content. Sentry is a gateway server that manages

17

and secures network traffic between the mobile devices and corporate systems, such as email and

18

document repository servers. The Mobile@Work client is installed on the mobile device, enforces

19

the security policies received from the Core server and also sends device information back to the

20

Core server.

21
22
4

See Docket No. 32-5.

5

See Docket No. 32-4.

6

See Docket No. 32-3.

23
24
25
7

26

AppCentral is a product that allows companies to distribute mobile applications to their users.
See Docket No. 191-10.

27

8

28

See Docket No. 41 at 10.

2
Case Nos. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LANHAM ACT
AND UNFAIR COMPETITION CLAIMS

1

MobileIron Cloud is MobileIron’s cloud-based EMM solution and also has three main

2

software components. The MobileIron Cloud server is the central location from which security

3

policies and actions are defined and implemented. MobileIron Cloud also includes a Sentry

4

gateway server that manages network traffic between the mobile devices and corporate systems.

5

MobileIron Go, the client software, is installed on the mobile device, enforces security policies

6

received from the MobileIron Cloud server and also sends device information back to the

7

MobileIron Cloud server. MobileIron also offers other various products and features such as

8

Docs@Work, Apps@Work, AppConnect and Email+. 9

9

Good alleges MobileIron disseminated marketing materials disparaging the quality of

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Good’s products and misrepresenting the nature of Good’s products to customers over which the

11

two parties competed. 10 According to Good, MobileIron’s marketing materials intentionally

12

presented false and misleading information to create confusion and influence the buying decisions

13

of the purchasing public. 11

14

In late 2012, Good sued MobileIron alleging infringement of the ’606, ’322, ’386 and ’219

15

patents. Good also alleges violations of the Lanham Act and California Business and Professions

16

Code Section 17200 based on various MobileIron statements in 2011 and 2012. 12 Good’s claims

17

rest on an unofficial document captioned “What’s Bad with Good.” 13 MobileIron counterclaimed,

18

alleging that Good’s AppCentral product infringes MobileIron’s ’016 patent. MobileIron now

19

moves for summary judgment on Good’s Lanham Act and unfair competition claims.

20
21
22
23

9

24

10

See Docket No. 32 at ¶¶ 50-61.

25

11

See id.

26

12

See Docket No. 199-5 at 1; Docket No. 199-6 at Exh. A, 6-7.

27

13

See id.

28

See Docket No. 219-5 at 3.

3
Case Nos. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LANHAM ACT
AND UNFAIR COMPETITION CLAIMS

1

II.

2

This court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125 and

3

28 U.S.C. §1367. The parties further consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate

4

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

5

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no

6

genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of

7

law.” Material facts are those that may affect the outcome of the case. 14 A dispute as to a material

8

fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the

9

non-moving party. 15 All evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

party. At this stage, a court “does not assess credibility or weigh the evidence, but simply

11

determines whether there is a genuine factual issue for trial.” 16 Initially, the moving party bears the

12

burden to show that no genuine issue of material fact exists. 17 If this burden is met, the burden

13

shifts to the non-moving party. 18

14

III.

15

MobileIron primarily seeks summary judgment on the basis that Good cannot show any

16

expense, lost goodwill, lost sale, diverted opportunity or other harm from the MobileIron

17

statements at issue. 19 But “[a]n inability to show actual damages does not alone preclude a

18

recovery under section 1117 [of the Lanham Act].” 20 “[E]ven if Plaintiffs had failed to raise a

19

triable issue as to causation and injury, their Lanham Act claim would still be viable to the extent it

20

14

21

See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) (“Only disputes over facts that
may affect the outcome of the suit under governing law will properly preclude the entry of
summary judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.”).

22

15

See id.

23

16

House v. Bell, 547 U.S.518, 559-60 (2006).

24

17

See Celotex Corp. v. Caltrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986).

25

18

See T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 630, 630 (9th Cir. 1987).

26

19

Docket No. 199-5 at 3.

27

20

Lindy Pen Co. v. Bic Pen Corp., 982 F.2d 1400, 1411 (9th Cir. 1993).

28

4
Case Nos. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LANHAM ACT
AND UNFAIR COMPETITION CLAIMS

1

sought an injunction.” 21 While Good may not be able to show that it has yet suffered harm, 22 a

2

reasonable jury could find that Good is likely to be injured in the future. This is sufficient to

3

proceed at trial. 23

4

The parties present conflicting evidence whether MobileIron deliberately distributed false
marketing materials, which gives rise to a presumption of injury. 24 The parties agree that a

6

document was circulated—at least to some customers—that detailed problems with Good’s

7

products. 25 But they disagree whether MobileIron knew the information was false and

8

intentionally distributed it to customers anyway. MobileIron points to the fact that the alleged

9

misrepresentations were cabined to a document sent in certain private email communications to a

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

5

handful of prospective customers, rather than through any widespread marketing announcement,

11

press release or marketing program. 26 Good, on the other hand, points to MobileIron internal

12

emails that suggest that MobileIron continued to disseminate information about Good despite

13

internal concerns that the statements were false. 27 A jury is required to sort all this out.

14
15

21

16

22

17
18
19

Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co., 108 F.3d 1134, 1146 (9th Cir. 1997).

Good states that is offered a 30(b)(6) witness and suggests that such a witness could have offered
testimony about the harm suffered by Good. But Good was obligated to provide any such
information about harm in its interrogatory responses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(3)(1). Having failed
to provide that information during discovery, Good may not now rely on it. And, in any event, the
declaration submitted by Good’s 30(b)(6) witness, Dr. Nicko Van Someren, does not allege that
Good suffered any actual injury. See Docket No. 234-13.
23

20
21
22
23

See Harper House, Inc. v. Thomas Nelson, Inc., 889 F.2d 197, 209 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Because of
the possibility that a competitor may suffer future injury . . . a competitor need not prove injury
when suing to enjoin conduct that violates section 43(a) [of the Lanham Act].”); see also Southland
Sod Farms, 108 F.3d at 1146 (9th Cir. 1997) (”[E]ven if Plaintiffs had failed to raise a triable issue
as to causation and injury, their Lanham Act claim would still be viable to the extent it sought an
injunction.”); Healthport Corp. v. Tanita Corp. of Am., 563 F. Supp. 2d 1169, 1181 (D. Or. 2008)
(denying summary judgment motion where the Lanham Act claim sought injunctive relief; no
showing of actual injury was required).

24

24

See Southland Sod Farms, 108 F.3d at 1146.

25

25

See Docket No. 199-6 at Exh. B.

26

26

See id.

27

27

See Docket No. 234-14.

28

5
Case Nos. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LANHAM ACT
AND UNFAIR COMPETITION CLAIMS