Funai Electric Co., Ltd. et al v. LSI Corporation et al
Filing
75
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART #48 MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 3/27/2017. Further Case Management Conference set for 4/6/2017 11:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose.(blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/27/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
SAN JOSE DIVISION
8
9
FUNAI ELECTRIC CO., LTD., ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
Case No. 16-cv-01210-BLF
v.
LSI CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
DISMISS FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT
[Re: ECF 48]
14
15
Plaintiffs Funai Electric Company Ltd., Funai Corporation, Inc., Funai Service
16
Corporation, and P&F USA, Inc. (collectively, “Funai”) claim that Defendants LSI Corporation
17
(“LSI”), Agere Systems LLC (“Agere”), and Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte.
18
Ltd. (“Avago”) lied to two different standard setting organizations (“SSOs”) as part of a scheme to
19
monopolize the markets for certain technologies. Defendants represented that if their technologies
20
were incorporated into standards for wireless Internet connectivity and video compression, they
21
would license any standard essential patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory
22
(“FRAND”) terms. Funai contends that Defendants had no intention of honoring that commitment
23
and, in fact, not only refused to offer Funai FRAND licenses to three patents Defendants have
24
asserted are standard essential, but also sued Funai for infringement of those patents. Funai has
25
responded by suing Defendants under the Sherman Act and state law.
26
Defendants move to dismiss a number of claims asserted in Funai’s operative first
27
amended complaint (“FAC”) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons
28
discussed below, the motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
I.
1
BACKGROUND1
According to Funai, Defendants’ scheme to monopolize began with their
2
3
misrepresentations to two SSOs: the Institute of Electrical Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”), which
4
developed what is now a widely practiced standard for wireless Internet connectivity known as
5
“WLAN,” “Wi-Fi,” or “802.11”; and the International Telecommunications Union (“ITU”), which
6
worked with the International Organization for Standardization and the International
7
Electrotechnical Commission (“ISO/IEC”) Moving Picture Experts Group (“MPEG”) to develop
8
what is now a widely practiced standard for video compression known as “H.264,” “MPEG-4 Part
9
10,” or “AVC.” FAC ¶¶ 26, 30-32, 126, ECF 40.
Defendants’ Misrepresentations to the IEEE (802.11 Standard)
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
The IEEE released the initial 802.11 protocol for wireless Internet connectivity, “legacy
12
802.11,” in 1997. FAC ¶ 29. A number of amendments were released over the next fifteen years,
13
culminating in the release of the “802.11” standard in 2012. Id. During this period, the IEEE had
14
a policy governing intellectual property rights (“IPR policy”) which might affect a standard under
15
consideration. Id. ¶¶ 33-36, 44-46. That policy required those involved in a standard’s
16
development to disclose ownership of any patent or patent application that might be essential to
17
the standard. Id. ¶ 33. Upon such disclosure, the IEEE requested Letters of Assurance stating
18
either that the patentee would not enforce such patents against those implementing the standard or
19
that the patentee would license such patents without compensation or on FRAND terms. Id. ¶ 34.
20
If Letters of Assurance were not provided, the IEEE would revise the standard to incorporate
21
alternative technologies or would discontinue work on the standard altogether. Id. ¶ 36.
In 2003, Defendant Agere and its predecessor in interest, Lucent Technologies, Inc.,
22
23
submitted Letters of Assurance to the IEEE, specifically identifying U.S. Patent Nos. 6,452,958
24
(’958 patent) and 6,707,867 (’867 patent) as containing one or more claims that may be required to
25
practice the 802.11e and 802.11g standards. FAC ¶ 38 and Exh. 1. The Letters of Assurance
26
stated that Agere was “prepared to grant a license to an unrestricted number of applicants on a
27
1
28
Plaintiff’s factual allegations are accepted as true for purposes of the motion to dismiss. See
Reese v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., 643 F.3d 681, 690 (9th Cir. 2011).
2
1
worldwide, non-discriminatory basis and on reasonable terms and conditions to comply with the
2
[Proposed] IEEE Standard.” Id. (alteration in original). Based on those Letters of Assurance, the
3
IEEE released the 802.11 standard and amendments to that standard which Defendants assert
4
incorporated their patented technology. Id. ¶ 39. Absent Defendants’ Letters of Assurance, the
5
IEEE either would have revised the standard to employ alternative technologies instead of
6
Defendants’ technologies or would have stopped working on the standard. Id. In reliance on the
7
IEEE’s standard setting process and Defendants’ Letters of Assurance promising to license any
8
standard essential patents on FRAND terms, Funai incorporated aspects of the 802.11 family of
9
standards into its products. Id. ¶¶ 42, 61-63.
Defendants’ Misrepresentations to the ITU (H.264 Standard)
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
The ITU and ISO/IEC began developing the current video compression standard’s
12
precursor, H.26X, in the 1990s. FAC ¶ 32. Several amendments were released over the years,
13
culminating in the release of the H.264 standard. Id. At the time the H.264 standard was under
14
consideration, the ITU’s IPR policy requested disclosure of any patent or patent application that
15
might cover elements of the proposed standard and the licensing of such patents royalty-free or on
16
FRAND terms. Id. ¶ 45. If a patentee indicated unwillingness to commit to a royalty-free or
17
FRAND license, the ITU could take a number of actions, including revising the standard to
18
remove the potential conflict. Id. ¶ 46.
19
In 2002, prior to release of the H.264 standard, Defendant Avago’s predecessor in interest,
20
VideoLocus, submitted a proposal to the ITU recommending that its technology – which later was
21
disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 6,982,663 (’663 patent)2 – be incorporated into the standard. FAC ¶
22
48. Along with the proposal, VideoLocus submitted licensing declarations promising to license its
23
granted, pending, or planned standard essential patents on FRAND terms. Id. ¶¶ 49-50 and Exhs.
24
2-3. Based on those licensing declarations, the ITU released the H.264 standard. Id. 51. Absent
25
the licensing declarations, the ITU either would have revised the standard to employ alternative
26
technologies instead of Defendants’ technology or would have stopped working on the standard.
27
28
2
The ’663 patent issued in January 2006. FAC ¶ 59.
3
1
Id. In reliance on the ITU’s standard setting process and Defendants’ licensing declarations, Funai
2
incorporated aspects of the H.264 standard into its products. Id. ¶ 54.
3
Defendants’ Commitments to MPEG LA (H.264 Standard)
4
Non-party MPEG LA administers license agreements for pools of patents that are asserted
5
to be essential to certain standards and technologies. FAC ¶ 55. An entity that takes a license for
6
a particular patent pool can manufacture and sell products using any or all of the pooled patents in
7
exchange for the payment of royalties. Id. ¶ 56. MPEG LA collects the royalties for the benefit of
8
the various patent holders who contribute to the patent pool as licensors. Id.
9
When an entity takes a license to a patent pool, such entity is contractually obligated to
grant reciprocal licenses to its own asserted standard essential patents by either (1) directly
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
granting such licenses to other licensees to the patent pool or (2) joining the patent pool as a
12
licensor. Id. ¶ 57. A licensee who grants such a reciprocal license either directly or by joining the
13
patent pool receives the same per-patent rate that other licensors receive. Id.
14
Among the patent pools administered by MPEG LA is the AVC Patent Portfolio License,
15
relating to the H.264 standard. FAC ¶ 55. Defendant LSI was a licensee to the AVC Patent
16
Portfolio License as early as October 2009 and as recently as December 2015. Id. ¶ 58. LSI thus
17
was contractually obligated to grant reciprocal licenses to its asserted standard essential patents to
18
other licensees to the patent pool. Id. Funai alleges that LSI has asserted in legal proceedings that
19
the claims of its ’663 patent are necessarily infringed by use or implementation of the H.264
20
standard. Id. ¶ 59. Because LSI has asserted that the ’663 patent is standard essential, LSI had a
21
contractual obligation to grant a reciprocal license to the ’663 patent to other licensees to the AVC
22
Patent Portfolio License. Id.
23
Defendants’ Refusal to Offer FRAND Licenses and Commencement of Litigation
24
Defendants refused to grant Funai a reciprocal license to the ’663 patent as required under
25
the terms of the MPEG LA license. FAC ¶¶ 93-94. Defendants likewise refused to grant Funai
26
licenses to the ’958, ’867, and ’663 patents on FRAND terms as required under their commitments
27
to the IEEE and ITU. FAC ¶¶ 64-71, 85-89. Defendants have offered to license the ’958, ’867,
28
and ’663 patents to Funai only upon the conditions that Funai pay exorbitant royalties and take
4
1
licenses to many of Defendants’ other patents that are irrelevant to Funai’s products or are invalid.
2
Id. ¶¶ 66-68, 86-88.
3
On March 12, 2012, Defendants LSI and Agere filed a complaint before the United States
4
International Trade Commission (“ITC Action”) against a number of respondents, including
5
Funai, asserting infringement of the ’958, ’867, and ’663 patents and one other patent, the ’087
6
patent. FAC ¶ 99 and Exh. 5. Defendants sought to exclude the respondents’ allegedly infringing
7
products from entry into the United States. Id. On the same date that they filed the ITC action,
8
Defendants filed suit against Funai in the United States District Court for the Central District of
9
California (“District Court Action”), asserting infringement of the same four patents at issue in the
ITC action. Id. ¶ 98 and Exh. 4. The parties stipulated to stay the District Court Action pending
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
resolution of the ITC Action. Id. ¶ 100.
12
In July 2013, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) presiding over the ITC Action
13
determined that Funai did not infringe any asserted claims of the ’958, ’867, or ’663 patents. FAC
14
¶ 101. In January 2014, while the ALJ’s determination was on appeal, Funai and LSI entered into
15
a license and settlement agreement under which they released each other from claims of liability
16
relating to the ’087 and ’663 patents as of the execution date of the license and settlement
17
agreement. Id. ¶ 102. LSI also granted Funai a license to the ’087 and ’663 patents through
18
September 30, 2015. Id. Based on the license and settlement agreement, the district court
19
dismissed with prejudice all claims relating to the ’087 and ’663 patents. Id. In March 2014, the
20
full ITC affirmed the ALJ’s findings of non-infringement regarding the ’958 and ’867 patents and
21
also found the claims of the ’958 patent to be invalid. Id. ¶ 103. In March 2015, the Federal
22
Circuit upheld the ITC’s finding of no violation based on lack of domestic industry and declined
23
to reach other liability issues. Id. ¶ 104.
24
In June 2015, Defendants filed a first amended complaint in the District Court Action to
25
(1) add Avago as a plaintiff, (2) add infringement allegations regarding another patent, and (3) add
26
counts for “Declaratory Judgment for Future Infringement” regarding the ’087 and ’663 patents
27
that previously had been dismissed from the case. FAC ¶ 105. Later the same month, Defendants
28
filed a second amended complaint in the District Court Action. Id. ¶ 106. In September 2015, the
5
1
District Court Action was transferred to the Northern District of California, and in October 2015
2
Defendants filed a third amended complaint alleging actual infringement of the ’663 patent. Id. ¶
3
108. In December 2015, Defendants filed a fourth amended complaint again alleging
4
infringement of the ’663 patent. Id. ¶ 109. In February 2016, Defendants voluntarily dismissed
5
the District Court Action without explanation. Id. ¶ 110. Defendants still refuse to offer Funai
6
licenses to the ’958, ’867, and ’663 patents on FRAND terms.3
Funai filed this action on March 11, 2016, and it filed the FAC as of right on August 29,
7
8
2016. The FAC asserts claims for: (1) violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act; (2) violation of
9
California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”); (3) breach of contract based on IEEE FRAND
obligations; (4) breach of contract based on ITU FRAND obligations; (5) breach of contract based
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
on licensing agreement with MPEG LA; (6) promissory estoppel; (7) declaratory judgment for
12
determination of FRAND rate and order requiring Defendants to offer FRAND license or
13
declaring Defendants’ patents to be unenforceable against Funai; (8) declaratory judgment of non-
14
infringement of the ’148 patent; and (9) declaratory judgment of non-infringment of the ’087
15
patent.
Defendants move to dismiss Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in whole or in part.
16
II.
17
LEGAL STANDARD
“A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a
18
19
claim upon which relief can be granted ‘tests the legal sufficiency of a claim.’” Conservation
20
Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d
21
729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001)). When determining whether a claim has been stated, the Court accepts
22
as true all well-pled factual allegations and construes them in the light most favorable to the
23
plaintiff. Reese v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., 643 F.3d 681, 690 (9th Cir. 2011). However, the
24
Court need not “accept as true allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial
25
notice” or “allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or
26
unreasonable inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008)
27
28
3
As noted above, Funai’s license to the ’663 patent expired in September 2015. FAC 102.
6
1
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). While a complaint need not contain detailed
2
factual allegations, it “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
3
relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
4
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible when it “allows the
5
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
III.
6
DISCUSSION
7
A.
8
Claim 1 asserts monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
9
10
Defendants
contend that Funai’s Section 2 claim is barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and that Funai
has failed to plead an essential element of the claim, causal antitrust injury.
1.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Claim 1 for Violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act
Noerr-Pennington
“The Noerr-Pennington doctrine allows private citizens to exercise their First Amendment
12
13
rights to petition the government without fear of antitrust liability.” Kaiser Found. Health Plan,
14
Inc. v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 552 F.3d 1033, 1044 (9th Cir. 2009).4 “Those who petition government
15
for redress are generally immune from antitrust liability.” Prof’l Real Estate Inv’rs, Inc. v.
16
Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. (“PRE”), 508 U.S. 49, 56 (1993).
The Supreme Court has recognized two exceptions to Noerr-Pennington: the “sham”
17
18
exception and the “Walker-Process” exception. The ‘sham’ exception applies when the
19
governmental process is used “as an anticompetitive weapon.” City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor
20
Advert., Inc., 499 U.S. 365, 380 (1991). “A sham situation involves a defendant whose activities
21
are not genuinely aimed at procuring favorable government action at all.” Id. (internal quotation
22
marks and citation omitted). The Walker-Process exception applies when an entity obtains a
23
patent fraudulently and then uses that patent to exclude a competitor from the market through
24
infringement litigation. Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp.,
25
382 U.S. 172, 177 (1965).
26
27
28
4
The doctrine takes its name from Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor
Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 (1961) (“Noerr”), and Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657
(1965) (“Pennington”).
7
1
Defendants assert that “[t]he bulk of the allegedly illegal conduct of which Funai
2
complains consists of a federal court case and an ITC action brought by LSI and Agere to protect
3
their patents.” Defs.’ Mot at 8-9, ECF 48. Because that conduct clearly was petitioning activity,
4
Defendants contend that Noerr-Pennington bars Funai’s antitrust claim unless Funai can show that
5
the ITC Action and District Court Action were sham litigation.5 Defendants argue that Funai
6
cannot make that showing.
Defendants mischaracterize Funai’s antitrust claim. The crux of the claim is Funai’s
7
8
assertion that Defendants lied to the IEEE and ITU in order to induce those SSOs to incorporate
9
Defendants’ technologies into the 802.11 standard for wireless Internet connectivity and the H.264
standard for video compression. FAC ¶¶ 126-131. Specifically, Funai alleges that Defendants
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
represented that if their technologies were incorporated into the standards, Defendants would
12
license their standard essential patents on FRAND terms. Id. Funai contends that Defendants had
13
no intention of meeting that commitment. Id. To the contrary, Funai claims, Defendants’
14
technologies were incorporated into the 802.11 and H.264 standards, but Defendants have refused
15
to offer Funai licenses to its asserted standard essential patents on FRAND terms. Id. ¶¶ 131, 136.
16
Funai summarizes Defendants’ alleged scheme to monopolize as follows: “Defendants’ objective
17
during the IEEE’s and ITU’s consideration of the relevant input technologies was first to cause
18
those technologies to be standardized through their advocacy for their adoption and simultaneous
19
deceit, and then to take advantage of the lock-in effect by demanding exorbitant royalties or other
20
license terms that were unfair, unreasonable, and/or discriminatory, which objective was flatly
21
inconsistent with their prior explicit FRAND undertaking to the IEEE and ITU.” Id. ¶ 126.
Those allegations, separate and apart from Funai’s allegations regarding the ITC Action
22
23
and District Court Action, are sufficient to give rise to a Section 2 claim. See Broadcom Corp. v.
24
Qualcomm Inc., 501 F.3d 297, 314 (3d Cir. 2007) (“We hold that (1) in a consensus-oriented
25
private standard-setting environment, (2) a patent holder’s intentionally false promise to license
26
essential proprietary technology on FRAND terms, (3) coupled with an SDO’s reliance on that
27
5
28
There is no suggestion in the record that Defendants obtained their patents by fraud and thus no
suggestion that the Walker-Process exception might apply.
8
1
promise when including the technology in a standard, and (4) the patent holder’s subsequent
2
breach of that promise, is actionable anticompetitive conduct.”); Microsoft Mobile Inc. v.
3
Interdigital, Inc., No. CV 15-723-RGA, 2016 WL 1464545, at *2 (D. Del. Apr. 13, 2016)
4
(denying motion to dismiss Section 2 claim based on allegations that defendant made intentionally
5
false FRAND commitments to induce SSO to adopt defendant’s technology and then refused to
6
comply with FRAND licensing obligations); Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. (“Apple”), No. 11-
7
CV-01846-LHK, 2011 WL 4948567, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2011) (“Courts have recognized
8
that fraudulent FRAND declarations that are used to induce SSOs to adopt standards essential
9
patents can be monopoly conduct for the purposes of establishing a Section 2 claim.”).
Funai does allege that “[a]s part of their overall anticompetitive scheme and in an attempt
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
to effectuate the hold-up power that Defendants enjoy as a result of their concealment of their true
12
intention not to offer FRAND terms to all those implementing the standards – despite their prior
13
written commitment to the contrary – Defendants filed the ITC Action and the District Court
14
Action.” FAC ¶ 137. Funai argues that because Defendants’ conduct in bringing the ITC Action
15
and District Court Action was part of a larger anticompetitive scheme, that conduct may be
16
considered when evaluating its Section 2 claim without running afoul of Noerr, regardless of
17
whether the conduct falls within the sham exception.
Neither the Supreme Court nor the Federal Circuit has spoken on this precise issue.6
18
19
However, the issue was addressed by another court in this district in Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v.
20
Rambus, Inc., 527 F. Supp. 2d 1084 (N.D. Cal. 2007). After conducting an exhaustive survey of
21
relevant authority, the Hynix court concluded that “the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court
22
would recognize some ‘scheme’ antitrust allegations that include constitutionally protected
23
litigation within the ‘overall course of conduct,’ but only those in which the patent litigation is
24
‘causally connected’ to anticompetitive harms.” Id. at 1096-97. The Hynix court went on to state
25
as follows:
26
6
27
28
“[W]hether conduct in procuring or enforcing a patent is sufficient to strip a patentee of its
immunity from the antitrust laws is to be decided as a question of Federal Circuit law.”
Nobelpharma AB v. Implant Innovations, Inc., 141 F.3d 1059, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 1998). This applies
“to all antitrust claims premised on the bringing of a patent infringement suit.” Id.
9
1
The court concludes that before otherwise protected litigation can be a part of an
“anticompetitive scheme” claim, the court must first find that the other aspects of
the scheme independently produce anticompetitive harms. Once this step has been
established, the court should ask whether the accused patent litigation was causally
connected to these anticompetitive harms. If yes, an antitrust plaintiff may then
include good faith patent litigation as part of the anticompetitive scheme.
2
3
4
5
Id. at 1097. The court reasoned that, “where the patent litigation is used to further the harm
6
caused under a ‘more traditional antitrust theory,’ a plaintiff should be allowed a full recovery.”
7
Id.
8
9
Hynix has been followed by some courts and disavowed by others. See, e.g., Microsoft
Mobile, 2016 WL 1464545, at *3 (following Hynix); Zenith Elecs., LLC v. Sceptre, Inc., No. LA
CV14-05150 JAK (AJWx), 2015 WL 12765633, at *6 n.2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2015) (following
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Hynix); Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Amphastar Pharm., Inc., No. 5:03-00887-MRP (PLA), 2009 WL
12
8727693, at *8 n.7 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2009) (disapproving Hynix). This Court is persuaded by
13
the reasoning of Hynix and will join those courts which have followed it.
14
At the first step of the Hynix inquiry, this Court finds that Funai adequately has alleged that
15
non-petitioning aspects of Defendants’ alleged scheme – specifically, the false FRAND
16
commitments – independently have caused Funai anticompetitive harm. Funai alleges that
17
Defendants’ refusal to license its technologies on FRAND terms impairs Funai’s ability to
18
compete in the markets for 802.11-compliant and H.264-compliant products and harms consumers
19
of such products because they will pay increased prices when unreasonably high royalties are
20
passed on downstream. FAC ¶¶ 146-153. At step 2 of the Hynix analysis, the Court finds that the
21
ITC Action and District Court Action were causally connected to these harms, as those actions
22
were mechanisms to maintain the monopolies obtained by Defendants’ misconduct before the
23
SSOs and to effectuate Defendants’ “hold-up power” to demand supracompetitive royalties. Id. ¶
24
137. The ITC Action and District Court action also increased Funai’s costs of competing in the
25
markets for 802.11-compliant and H.264-compliant products, as those actions required Funai to
26
expend significant resources to defend those actions. Id. ¶ 150. Consequently, the Court will
27
consider the ITC Action and District Court Action as part of Defendants’ alleged anticompetitive
28
scheme.
10
Defendants’ motion to dismiss Claim 1 as barred by Noerr-Pennington is DENIED.
1
2.
2
Antitrust Injury
“There are three essential elements to a successful claim of Section 2 monopolization: (a)
3
4
the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market; (b) the willful acquisition or
5
maintenance of that power; and (c) causal antitrust injury.” Allied Orthopedic Appliances Inc. v.
6
Tyco Health Care Grp. LP, 592 F.3d 991, 998 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and
7
citation omitted). Defendants assert that Funai has not pled the last element, causal antitrust
8
injury.
9
In order to satisfy this element, Funai must allege facts showing that Defendants’ conduct
caused it to suffer injuries “of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
from that which makes defendants’ acts unlawful.” Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.,
12
429 U.S. 477, 489 (1977). “The antitrust laws . . . were enacted for the protection of competition
13
not competitors.” Id. at 488 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “Injury that flows
14
from aspects of a defendant’s conduct that are beneficial or neutral to competition is not ‘antitrust
15
injury.’” Paladin Assocs., Inc. v. Montana Power Co., 328 F.3d 1145, 1158 (9th Cir. 2003).
16
“Where the defendant’s conduct harms the plaintiff without adversely affecting competition
17
generally, there is no antitrust injury.” Id.
18
Funai alleges injury to both itself and consumers resulting from Defendants’ unlawful
19
monopolization of the “Input Technology Markets,” which Funai defines as “congruent with each
20
of the allegedly essential patents – the ’867 patent, the ’958 patent, and the ’663 patent,
21
respectively.” FAC ¶ 114. In an antitrust suit based upon allegations that a SSO adopted a
22
standard incorporating the defendant’s technologies, thus eliminating substitute or alternative
23
technologies, the relevant market may be defined as “congruent with the scope of” the defendant’s
24
patents. Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 501 F.3d 297, 315 (3d Cir. 2007). Funai alleges that
25
Defendants’ monopolization of the Input Technology Markets has caused Funai to suffer
26
anticompetitive injury in that reasonable substitutes for Defendants’ technologies have been
27
excluded, Defendants have refused to license its technologies to Funai on FRAND terms, and
28
Defendants have forced Funai to expend significant resources, including attorneys’ fees and other
11
1
expenses, in defending the ITC Action and District Court Action. FAC ¶¶ 146-53.
Funai alleges that in addition these harms particular to Funai, Defendants’ conduct has
2
3
harmed competition more broadly: “Defendants’ wrongful conduct has brought about and
4
continues to threaten to bring about a significant threat of injury for downstream price, quality,
5
and innovation competition for devices that connect wirelessly to the Internet, or third party
6
products that decompress digital video streams, thereby causing injury to consumers across the
7
United States and elsewhere.” FAC ¶ 152. Funai adds that, “[t]hese threatened injuries include
8
the inevitable passing on to consumers of improper royalties demanded by Defendants and
9
decreases in innovation and quality competition for end products that comply with the 802.11 and
H.264 standards.” Id. According to Funai, “Defendants’ abusive conduct has and continues to
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
threatens [sic] to dampen innovation for products that comply with the 802.11 and H.264
12
standards by eliminating manufacturers’ ability to invest in and bring to market innovative
13
products with confidence that holders of claimed essential patents will not seek to enjoin their
14
products or demand exorbitant, non-FRAND licensing terms.” Id.
A court in this district deemed similar allegations to be sufficient in Apple. In that case,
15
16
Apple alleged in its reply counterclaims that: “Samsung’s conduct more broadly has and
17
continues to threaten unlawfully to exclude rivals from and increase royalties and other costs
18
associated with the manufacture and sale of downstream wireless communications devices that
19
implement the UMTS standard and chill competition to develop and sell innovative new UMTS-
20
compliant products, resulting in increased prices and decreased quality and innovation in
21
downstream product markets and complementary innovation markets.” Apple, 2011 WL 4948567,
22
at *4.7
23
At the hearing, Defendants’ counsel asserted disagreement with the analysis of Apple, and
24
suggested that Funai must identify another entity that has been denied a license on FRAND terms
25
or otherwise harmed by Defendants’ conduct. Counsel did not cite, and the Court has not
26
27
28
7
This Court takes judicial notice of its own docket to consider Apple’s reply counterclaims to
determine whether they contained more factual specificity than the district court’s summary. See
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 11-cv-01846-LHK, ECF 124. They did not.
12
1
discovered, any case holding that level of specificity to be required at the pleading stage. To the
2
contrary, the most closely analogous cases reviewed by the Court found no fault with allegations
3
similar to those in this case and in Apple. See, e.g., Microsoft Mobile, 2016 WL 1464545, at *3;
4
Research In Motion Ltd. v. Motorola, Inc., 644 F. Supp. 2d 788, 793-96 (N.D. Tex. 2008).
5
Moreover, the Court notes that Funai has identified another entity that has been harmed by
6
Defendants’ conduct, as Funai alleges that Defendants refused to extend Funai’s WiFi chip
7
manufacturer, Realtek Semiconductor Corporation, licenses on FRAND terms and sued Realtek
8
for injunctive relief both in federal court and before the ITC. FAC ¶¶ 65, 75.
9
Defendants’ motion to dismiss Claim 1 for failure to allege causal antitrust injury is
DENIED.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
B.
12
Claim 2 asserts that Defendants’ anticompetitive conduct also violates California’s UCL.
13
California Business & Professions Code § 17200 prohibits an individual or entity from engaging
14
in an “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.
15
“By proscribing any unlawful business practice, section 17200 borrows violations of other laws
16
and treats them as unlawful practices that the unfair competition law makes independently
17
actionable.” Chabner v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 225 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th Cir. 2000)
18
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Defendants argue that because Funai’s UCL claim
19
is based upon Defendants’ alleged anticompetitive conduct, the UCL claim should be dismissed
20
for the same reasons as the Sherman Act claim. As discussed above, Defendants have failed to
21
demonstrate that the Sherman Act claim is subject to dismissal.
Claim 2 for Violation of California’s UCL
22
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Claim 2 is DENIED.
23
C.
24
Defendants ask the Court to dismiss without leave to amend “[a]ll counts of the Complaint
25
related to the ’663 patent that related to conduct by [Defendants] prior to October 1, 2015” on the
26
basis that Funai expressly released such claims when parties entered into a license and settlement
27
agreement in January 2014. Defs.’ Mot. at 12, ECF 48. Defendants’ request encompasses Claim
28
1 (Sherman Act), Claim 2 (UCL), Claim 4 (breach of contract based on ITU FRAND obligations),
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 as Related to ’663 Patent
13
1
and Claim 6 (promissory estoppel). Id.
Funai does not dispute, and in fact it expressly alleges, that it entered into a license and
2
3
settlement agreement with LSI in January 2014. FAC ¶ 102. Funai does not attach a copy of the
4
agreement to its FAC, but Defendants have submitted excerpts of the agreement, Exh. C to Bell
5
Decl., ECF 48-4, which the Court considers under the incorporation by reference doctrine, see
6
Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2005) (incorporation by reference doctrine
7
permits a court to consider documents referenced in but not physically attached to the complaint).
8
Under the terms of the agreement, the parties released each other from all claims of liability
9
related to the ’663 patent and the ’087 patent (not at issue in this lawsuit) “as of the EXECUTION
DATE” of the agreement, and LSI granted Funai a license to the two patents through September
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
30, 2015. FAC ¶ 102; Agreement ¶ 2.01(a), Exh. C to Bell Decl. The agreement was executed on
12
January 6, 2014.8 Agreement, Exh. C to Bell Decl. Accordingly, while Funai may not – and does
13
not attempt to – assert claims based on the ’663 patent arising from conduct prior to January 6,
14
2014, nothing in the agreement precludes Funai from asserting claims arising after that date.
Defendants argue in their motion brief that Funai has no conceivable basis for asserting
15
16
claims based on the ’663 patent prior to the license’s expiration on September 30, 2015. However,
17
as Funai points out in its opposition, the FAC alleges expressly that on June 2, 2015 – during the
18
pendency of the license – Defendants amended their pleading in the District Court Action to add
19
counts for “Declaratory Judgment[s] for Future Infringement” of the ’663 patent and the ’087
20
patent. FAC ¶ 105. Faced with that allegation, Defendants in their reply request that the Court
21
dismiss all claims based on the ’663 patent for conduct occurring during the period between
22
January 2014 and June 2, 2015.
The Court declines to do so. Funai’s allegations make clear, and Funai has confirmed in
23
24
its briefing, that it is not asserting any claims based on the ’663 patent arising prior to the
25
execution date of the settlement agreement on January 6, 2014. Defendants have provided no
26
27
28
8
While the signature page of the agreement reflects and execution date of January 6, 2014, the
FAC alleges and execution date of January 3, 2014. For purposes of this motion, the Court uses
the January 6 date.
14
1
basis for dismissing claims based on the ’663 patent arising after that date. Defendants appear to
2
be asking the Court to excise time periods as to which Funai has not alleged specific
3
anticompetitive conduct. Defendants have not cited, and the Court has not discovered, any
4
authority for carving up Funai’s claims in such a manner. Funai need not allege anticompetitive
5
conduct for every date throughout the course of the alleged scheme.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss portions of claims based on the ’663 patent is DENIED.
7
D.
8
Claim 5 asserts that when Defendants took a license to the MPEG LA AVC/H.264 patent
9
pool, also referred to in the FAC as the AVC Patent Portfolio License, they became contractually
10
obligated to license their standard essential patents to other licensees to the pool. FAC ¶¶ 55, 180.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
6
As discussed above, when an entity takes a license to a patent pool administered by MPEG LA,
12
such entity is contractually obligated to grant reciprocal licenses to its own asserted standard
13
essential patents by either (1) directly granting such licenses to other licensees to the patent pool or
14
(2) joining the patent pool as a licensor. Id. ¶ 57. A licensee who grants such a reciprocal license
15
either directly or by joining the patent pool receives the same per-patent rate that other licensors
16
receive. Id. Funai alleges that LSI was a licensee to the AVC Patent Portfolio License as early as
17
October 2009 and as recently as December 2015. Id. ¶ 58. Funai also was a licensee to the AVC
18
Patent Portfolio license and therefore was a third party beneficiary to Defendants’ contractual
19
agreement with MPEG LA. Id. ¶ 180. Funai claims that Defendants breached their contractual
20
obligation by “filing and maintaining the amended complaints in the District Court Action, prior to
21
offering Funai licenses to the ’663 patent at a rate consistent with their obligations to MPEG LA.”
22
Id. ¶ 181.
23
Claim 5 for Breach of Contract Based on MPEG LA License Agreement
Defendants assert that Claim 5 is defective because LSI, in its role as licensor to the patent
24
pool, did not include the ’663 patent in the patent pool during the relevant time frame. That
25
argument is beside the point, as Funai alleges that Defendants’ contractual obligation arises from
26
LSI’s role as a licensee to the patent pool.
27
With respect to Funai’s claim of liability based upon LSI’s role as a licensee, Defendants
28
argue that Funai’s allegations are insufficient because LSI was obligated to license only standard
15
essential patents and Funai has not alleged facts showing that LSI asserted that the ’663 patent was
2
standard essential. In opposition, Funai points to its allegation that: “Defendant LSI’s allegations
3
in the ITC Action and District Court Action demonstrates that it believes that the claims of the
4
’663 patent are ‘necessarily infringed in connection with the use or implementation of the AVC
5
Standard’ such that the ’663 patent, which issued from the USPTO on January 3, 2006 and was
6
owned by Defendant LSI when it entered the MPEG LA license, was covered by the license grant
7
contained in Defendant LSI’s agreement with MPEG LA.” FAC ¶ 59. In reply, Defendants do
8
not argue that the ’663 patent is not standard essential. Instead, they argue that they did not admit
9
in either the ITC Action or the District Court Action that the ’663 patent is standard essential, and
10
that Funai has not alleged facts showing that such an admission was made. Whether Defendants
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
did or did not take the position that the ’663 patent is standard essential in prior litigation is a
12
question of fact. The Court concludes that for pleading purposes, Funai adequately has alleged
13
that Defendants did take such a position.
14
Defendants’ motion to dismiss Claim 5 is DENIED.
15
E.
16
Claim 6 asserts that Defendants promised the IEEE and the ITU that they would license
Claim 6 for Promissory Estoppel
17
standard essential patents on FRAND terms, and that Fuani relied on those promises in developing
18
and marketing its products. FAC ¶¶ 186-89. Funai alleges that “Defendants are estopped from
19
reneging on [their] promises to IEEE and ITU, its members, designers, and sellers of products
20
implementing the 802.11 and H.264 standards, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.” Id. ¶
21
190.
22
Defendants seek dismissal of Claim 6 as precluded by Funai’s claims for breach of
23
contract based on Defendants’ agreements with the IEEE and the ITU. “Promissory estoppel is a
24
doctrine that operates as a substitute for consideration where a contract fails.” Horne v. Harley-
25
Davidson, Inc., 660 F. Supp. 2d 1152, 1162 (C.D. Cal. 2009). A plaintiff may not state a claim for
26
promissory estoppel where a valid contract, supported by consideration, governs the same subject
27
matter as the alleged promise. Id. In opposition, Funai argues that it properly may argue
28
promissory estoppel as an alternative to its contract claims where it has not yet been established
16
1
that valid contacts exist between Defendants and the SSOs and that Funai is a third party
2
beneficiary with respect to those contracts. At the hearing, Defendants’ counsel represented that
3
Defendants do not contest the existence of the contracts in question or Funai’s status as a third
4
party beneficiary.
5
Based on the representation of Defendants’ counsel at the hearing, Defendants’ motion to
6
dismiss Claim 6 is GRANTED without prejudice to renewal if Defendants later take a different
7
position regarding the contracts in question.
8
F.
Claim 7 for Declaratory Judgment
9
Claim 7 seeks a declaratory judgment: (a) establishing that Defendants have not offered to
license the ’867, ’958, and ’663 patents to Funai on FRAND terms; (b) setting forth FRAND
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
terms, including the applicable royalty rate; and (c) establishing that if Defendants refuse to offer
12
licenses on FRAND terms, Defendants’ allegedly essential patents – including the ’867, ’958, and
13
’663 patents – are unenforceable against Funai and its customers. Defendants seek dismissal of
14
this claim as unripe and duplicative.
15
The standard for determining the ripeness of a claim for declaratory judgment is “whether
16
there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient
17
immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.” Principal Life Ins. Co.
18
v. Robinson, 394 F.3d 665, 671 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
19
Defendants contend that Funai has failed to identify a pending lawsuit or threat of litigation
20
sufficient to establish a controversy between the parties of sufficient immediacy to warrant
21
declaratory judgment. Funai points to its allegations that after litigating against it for years,
22
Defendants dismissed the District Court Action without explanation and without prejudice. FAC
23
¶ 110. Funai also alleges that Defendants to this day have not offered to license the ’867, ’958 and
24
’663 patents to Funai on FRAND terms. Id. These allegations are sufficient to establish a
25
controversy of sufficient immediacy to support Funai’s claim for declaratory judgment.
26
Defendants alternatively ask the Court to strike Claim 7 as duplicative of Funai’s Claims
27
3-5 for breach of contract. Funai argues that while there is significant overlap between the claims,
28
the remedies sought under the claim for declaratory judgment are not identical to the remedies
17
1
sought under the contract claim. For example, Funai asserts, to obtain relief under the declaratory
2
judgment claim, Funai would not necessarily need to prove contract damages. “Courts may
3
choose not to permit a claim for declaratory relief when resolution of other claims would
4
sufficiently resolve the controversy.” Kho v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. SACV 12-0847 DOC, 2012
5
WL 3240041, at *9 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2012). It is not clear that all of the relief sought under
6
Claim 7 is available to Funai under its contract claims. Accordingly, at this state of the
7
proceedings the Court declines to dismiss Claim 7 as duplicative.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss Claim 7 is DENIED.
8
9
IV.
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
(1)
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to
Claim 6 for the reasons set forth herein;
12
13
(2)
Defendants’ motion to dismiss otherwise is DENIED;
14
(3)
Defendants shall answer the FAC; and
15
(4)
A Case Management Conference is set for April 6, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. to discuss
16
the case schedule in light of the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ motion. Counsel
17
may appear at the Case Management Conference telephonically.
18
19
20
21
Dated: March 27, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18
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?