Fitbit, Inc. v. AliphCom et al
Filing
76
ORDER granting 64 Motion to Bifurcate and Stay the Antitrust Counterclaim. Signed by Edward J. Davila on 5/27/2016 (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/27/2016) Modified on 5/27/2016 (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF).
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
SAN JOSE DIVISION
4
5
FITBIT, INC.,
Case No. 5:15-cv-04073-EJD
Plaintiff,
6
v.
7
8
ALIPHCOM, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO BIFURCATE AND STAY
DEFENDANTS’ ANTITRUST
COUNTERCLAIM
Re: Dkt. No. 64
9
Plaintiff FitBit, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Aliphcom, Body
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Media, Inc., and Body Media (collectively “Defendants”) alleging infringement of a number of
12
Plaintiff’s patents related to wearable fitness tracking devices. Defendants filed an answer denying
13
these allegations and asserting a counterclaim of monopolization in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 2.
14
Federal jurisdiction arises pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Dkt. No. 64. Presently before the
15
court is Fitbit’s motion to bifurcate and stay Aliphcom’s antitrust counterclaim. Aliphcom opposes
16
the motion. Having carefully considered the pleadings and motion papers filed by the parties, the
17
court finds, concludes and orders as follows:
18
1. Courts have broad discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Pro 42(b) to bifurcate
22
and stay counterclaims. Rule 42(b) rule provides as follows:
The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or
when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy,
may order a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or
third-party claim, or of any separate trial of any number of claims,
cross-claims, counterclaims, third-party claims. When ordering a
separate trial, the court must preserve any federal right to a jury trial.
23
Rule 42(b)’s standards are read “in the disjunctive instead of in the conjunctive.” Giro Sport
24
Design Inc. v. Pro-Tec Inc., 1989 WL 418774, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 1989) (citing In Re Paris
25
Air Crash of March 3, 1974, 69 F.R.D. 310 (1975)). As such, satisfaction of even one of the
26
standards constitutes sufficient grounds for bifurcation. The burden of proving that bifurcation is
19
20
21
27
28
1
Case No.: 5:15-cv-04073-EJD
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE AND STAY DEFENDANTS’
ANTITRUST COUNTERCLAIM
1
justified rests with the party seeking it. Chip-Mender Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., No. C-05-
2
3465-PJH, 2006 WL 13058, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Jan 3, 2006) (citing Spectra-Physics Lasers, Inc. v.
3
Uniphase Corp., 144 F.R.D. 99, 101 (N.D. Cal. 1992)).
4
2. In the context of patent suits, district courts often stay an antitrust counterclaim until the
5
issues of patent infringement and validity are resolved. In re Innotron Diagnostics, 800 F. 2d 1077,
6
1084 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also Eurand, 2009 WL 3172197, at *1. Those courts reason that such a
7
separation simplifies issues, reduces jury confusion, and helps courts manage the volume and
8
complexity of evidence presented to the jury. Masimo Corp v. Philips Elec. N. Am. Corp., 742 F.
9
Supp. 2d 492, 496 (D. Del. 2010); see Baldwin Hardware Corp. v. Franksu Enter. Corp., No. CV90-4919-WDK, 1990 WL 357312, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 1990) (“[S]eparating complex
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
antitrust issues of market power and monopoly from patent, unfair competition and trade dress
12
issues would reduce the likelihood of jury confusion and result in an earlier resolution of the
13
issues in dispute.”); see also Orthophoenix, LLC v. Dfine, Inc., No. 13-1004-LPS, 2015 WL
14
1938702, at *1 (D. Del. Apr. 28, 2015) (observing that trying patent infringement, patent validity,
15
and antitrust issues before the same jury may lead to confusion).
16
3. Plaintiff argues that judicial economy, convenience of the parties, and
17
streamlining of complex litigation favors the bifurcation and stay of the antitrust claim.
18
Additionally, Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s characterization of the market as one for
19
connected fitness trackers differs from its own, and is precisely the type of issue that broadens the
20
scope of discovery, requires expert economic testimony, and increases overall litigation expenses.
21
Finally, Plaintiff concludes that the immense cost, scope, and expense associated with allowing
22
antitrust discovery to continue is contrary to Rule 42(b)’s goal of resource preservation.
23
4. Defendants counter that Plaintiff’s motion to bifurcate and stay its antitrust counterclaim
24
should be denied for several reasons. First, they argue the efficiency gained by a bifurcation is
25
outweighed by the harm suffered by Defendants. According to Defendants, a stay would give
26
Plaintiff the chance to consolidate its control over the market for connected activity trackers and
27
2
Case No.: 5:15-cv-04073-EJD
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE AND STAY DEFENDANTS’
ANTITRUST COUNTERCLAIM
28
1
increase a competitor’s barrier to entry to such an extent that Defendants would be excluded from
2
the market. Second, Defendants assert that a bifurcation and stay would not improve efficiency
3
because the discovery relevant to the antitrust claim is not substantively distinct from the
4
discovery relevant to patent infringement claims. Finally, Defendants argue that even if the
5
antitrust claim were bifurcated, the existence of significant evidentiary overlap between patent and
6
antitrust issues favors the continuation of discovery.
7
5. The court finds that bifurcation and stay of the antitrust counterclaim is appropriate for
8
multiple reasons. First, resolving issues of patent validity and infringement before addressing the
9
antitrust counterclaim may render the antitrust claim moot - thereby conserving judicial economy.
Apotex, Inc. v. Senju Pharm. Co., Ltd., 921 F. Supp. 2d 308, 314 (D. Del. Feb. 7, 2013) (“The
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
court has stayed antitrust litigation where there was a possibility that the resolution of the
12
underlying patent claims could moot, narrow, or otherwise simplify the antitrust claims.”); see
13
also Iptronics v. Avago Technologies U.S., Inc., No. 14-CV-05647-BLF, 2015 WL 5029282, at *8
14
(N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2015) (same). In addition, to prevail on the antitrust claim, Defendants must
15
prove that Plaintiff’s suit is “objectively baseless,” which requires convincing a court that no
16
“reasonable patent owner” could believe that Defendants’ products infringed Plaintiff’s patents.
17
Eurand, 2009 WL 3172197, at * 2. And even if Defendant prevails on the question of
18
infringement, a court may still rule that the suit was not objectively baseless because Plaintiff may
19
well have filed the suit with a realistic expectation of prevailing on the merits. Id.; see also
20
Apotex, 921 F. Supp. 2d 308, 314-15 (D. Del. Feb. 7, 2013) (reasoning that while a winning
21
lawsuit is by definition a reasonable effort at petitioning for redress and therefore not a sham, a
22
losing lawsuit does not necessarily mean that the litigation was a sham because a party may have
23
had entirely reasonable ground for bringing the suit) (citations and internal quotations omitted).
24
As such, it is highly likely that the antitrust issues will be resolved or rendered moot upon
25
resolution of patent infringement and validity issues. Therefore a bifurcation and stay would
26
conserve judicial economy.
27
3
Case No.: 5:15-cv-04073-EJD
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE AND STAY DEFENDANTS’
ANTITRUST COUNTERCLAIM
28
1
6. Second, the lack of evidentiary overlap between patent validity, infringement, and antitrust
issues will cause jury confusion. The antitrust claim involves the analysis of anticompetitive and
3
monopolistic behavior on the part of a party, while patent infringement focuses on “the products
4
of a patentee and the alleged infringer.” Masimo Corp., 742 F. Supp. 2d at 498. The antitrust
5
claim restricts monopolistic behavior, while a patent grants its owner certain monopolistic powers.
6
Id. at 499. A jury presented with evidence alleging “the lawful exercise of patent rights” and “the
7
unlawful exercise of anticompetitive behavior,” could easily “blur the distinction between
8
legitimate patent enforcement” and the exercise of “unlawful” monopolistic powers. Id. Allowing
9
Defendants to introduce evidence related to antitrust issues would increase the likelihood of just
10
such confusion among the jury, and interfere with their ability to address the more pertinent issue
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
2
of patent infringement. As such, a bifurcation of the antitrust claim is warranted.
12
7. Defendants contend that even if the court bifurcates Defendant’s counterclaim,
13
discovery associated with the antitrust counterclaim should continue because there is significant
14
evidentiary overlap between patent and antitrust issues. The court rejects this argument for the
15
reasons stated above, and finds that allowing discovery to proceed with respect to the antitrust
16
counterclaim would be unnecessary and burdensome.
17
On balance, the court finds that the antitrust counterclaim should be bifurcated and stayed
18
in the interests of conserving judicial economy and reducing jury confusion. As such, the court
19
GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to bifurcate and stay Defendants’ antitrust counterclaim and stays
20
discovery with respect to the same. The hearing scheduled for June 2, 2016 is VACATED.
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
Dated: May 27, 2016
24
25
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge
26
27
28
4
Case No.: 5:15-cv-04073-EJD
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE AND STAY DEFENDANTS’
ANTITRUST COUNTERCLAIM
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?