O2COOL, LLC v. Discovery Communications LLC et al
Filing
50
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr on 1/15/2013:Mailed notice(air, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
O2COOL, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
DISCOVERY COMMUNICATIONS,
LLC and MERCHSOURCE, LLC,
Defendants.
No. 12 C 3204
Judge John J. Tharp
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendants Discovery Communications, LLC (“Discovery) and MerchSource,
LLC (“MerchSource”) move to dismiss O2COOL, LLC’s (“O2COOL”) patent
infringement complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) on the grounds that Discovery and
MerchSource filed an earlier declaratory judgment action in the Central District of
California (“California Lawsuit”) to decide the same issues. O2COOL denies that the
California Lawsuit was first-filed, and, alternatively, argues that equitable factors favor
deciding the lawsuit in this district rather than in the Central District of California. For
the reasons explained below, the Court finds that the California Lawsuit was first-filed
and that equitable factors do not outweigh the general preference for deciding a case in
the district where it was first filed. Therefore, the Court grants the defendants’ motion to
dismiss this action.
BACKGROUND
O2COOL is the sole owner of the interest in United States Letters Patent No.
5,338,495 (the “’495 Patent”), an invention entitled “Portable Misting Fan.” The ’495
1
Patent was issued in 1994. On March 22, 2012, O2COOL filed lawsuit number 12 C
2109 in this district against Windy City Novelties, Inc. (the “Windy City Litigation”),
claiming that Windy City infringed the ’495 Patent by making and selling spray bottle
fans utilizing O2COOL’s patented technology. Windy City Novelties is not related to
either Discovery or MerchSource. On April 17, 2012, O2COOL filed an amended
complaint in the Windy City Litigation, purporting to add new claims that Discovery and
MerchSource also infringed the ’495 Patent. That same day, counsel for O2COOL sent a
letter to Discovery and MerchSource informing them of the Windy City Litigation,
demanding that they cease and desist from making and selling spray bottle fans, and
inviting settlement discussions. On April 26, 2012, Judge Shadur, before whom the
Windy City Litigation was pending, sua sponte entered an order questioning whether
Discovery and MerchSource could be properly added to the Windy City Litigation
because their alleged infringement appeared to be independent of the alleged
infringement by Windy City. Later that day, O2COOL amended its complaint in the
Windy City Litigation, terminating Discovery and MerchSource as defendants in that
lawsuit.
Also on April 26, 2012, Discovery and MerchSource filed the California Lawsuit,
number SAC12-657 pending in the Central District of California. The original complaint
in the California Lawsuit sought a declaration that MerchSource’s portable misting fan
did not violate any of O2COOL’s intellectual property rights, and specifically referenced
the ’495 Patent. The original complaint also appears to have sought a declaration that
Discovery and MerchSource did not commit trade dress infringement under the Lanham
Act, and it further included a count for tortious interference.
2
On April 30, 2012, O2COOL filed the complaint at issue in this case, alleging that
Discovery and MerchSource infringed the ’495 Patent. Discovery and MerchSource
moved to dismiss or transfer for improper venue, arguing that the California Lawsuit was
the first-filed action, and therefore the Central District of California should decide the
patent dispute. O2COOL opposed the defendants’ motion, arguing that the California
Lawsuit was not first-filed because the complaint in that lawsuit sought a declaration
under the Lanham Act, rather than under the Patent Act. O2COOL also argued that
equitable factors weigh in favor of deciding the case in this district. After receiving
O2COOL’s response to their motion to dismiss, Discovery and MerchSource amended
their complaint in the California Lawsuit to remove all references to trade dress and the
Lanham Act, and to clarify that they sought a declaration of non-infringement under the
Patent Act. Discovery and MerchSource also replied in support of their motion to
dismiss, and O2COOL filed a surreply, which the Court has considered.
DISCUSSION
When duplicative actions are filed in different federal courts, “the general rule
favors the forum of the first-filed suit.” Pfizer Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 640 F. Supp. 2d 1006,
1007 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (citing Schwarz v. Nat’l Van Lines, Inc., 317 F. Supp. 2d 829, 832
(N.D. Ill. 2004)). This rule specifically applies to patent infringement cases involving
declaratory judgment actions. The Federal Circuit has instructed district courts to “favor[]
the forum of the first-filed action, whether or not it is a declaratory action,” unless
“considerations of judicial and litigant economy, and the just and effective disposition of
disputes, require otherwise.” Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 998 F.2d 931, 937 (Fed.
Cir. 1993), abrogated in part on other grounds by Wilton v. Steven Falls Co., 515 U.S.
277, 289 (1995). Here, the parties dispute whether the California Lawsuit or this lawsuit
3
was first-filed, and they also dispute whether equitable considerations favor the Central
District of California or this district. The Court holds that the California Lawsuit was
first-filed, and that equitable considerations—which do not weigh strongly in favor of
either district—do not provide a basis for ignoring the general rule favoring the forum of
the first-filed lawsuit.
I. The California Lawsuit Was the First Filed Lawsuit.
The original complaint in the California Lawsuit was filed four days before the
complaint in this lawsuit. But O2COOL argues that the original complaint in the
California Lawsuit related solely to trade dress and the Lanham Act and that it did not
implicate the patent laws or the ’495 Patent at all.1 According to O2COOL, the amended
complaint in the California Lawsuit was the first to raise issues of patent infringement,
and that complaint was filed well after O2COOL had filed this lawsuit.
A review of Discovery and MerchSource’s original complaint in the California
Lawsuit reveals, however, that they did seek a declaration that the misting fan did not
infringe on the ’495 Patent. The dispute on this point arises because their original
complaint is somewhat confusing. O2COOL rightly points out that the original complaint
in the California Lawsuit states that jurisdiction is based on the Lanham Act, and titles its
first cause of action “Declaratory Judgment Trade Dress Non-Infringement.” Dkt. 17-3 ¶
4 & p. 5. But other portions of the complaint make clear that Discovery and MerchSource
sought a declaration stating that they did not infringe on the ’495 Patent. For instance,
Discovery and MerchSource’s introductory paragraph to the complaint stated that it was
1
O2COOL does not argue that the filing of its complaint should be measured from the
date it attempted to amend its complaint in the Windy City Litigation. As Judge Shadur’s
order suggested, the filing of that complaint was defective and in any event O2COOL
subsequently withdrew it.
4
being brought under the U.S. Patent Act and cited the ’495 Patent (id. ¶ 1), their
allegations referenced the letter O2COOL sent alleging patent infringement (id. ¶ 9) and
denied infringing the patent (id. ¶ 11), they claimed that the features of O2COOL’s
misting fan were not subject to patent protection (id. ¶ 12), and they listed the differences
between their misting fan and the ’495 Patent (id. ¶ 13). Further, even in the cause of
action whose title relates to “trade dress,” Discovery and MerchSource alleged that their
misting fan was “not in violation of any patent rights” (id. ¶ 19), and claimed that the fan
did not “in any way” give rise to a claim for damages (id. ¶ 21). Finally, in the prayer for
relief they sought a declaration that the fan did not “violate[] any intellectual property
rights” of O2COOL. Id. p. 7. In sum, the original complaint in the California Lawsuit put
O2COOL on notice of Discovery and MerchSource’s claim that their misting fan did not
infringe the ’495 Patent.
The amended complaint in the California Lawsuit, which indisputably raises the
same issues at stake in this lawsuit, “relates back” to the original complaint because it
“arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out—or attempted to be set out—
in the original pleading.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c), Arreola v. Godinez, 546 F.3d 788, 796
(7th Cir. 2008). The amended complaint, like the original complaint, seeks a declaration
that Discovery and MerchSource’s misting fan does not infringe on the ’495 Patent.
Though the amended complaint eliminates any reference to trade dress infringement or
the Lanham Act and includes for the first time a request for a declaration that the ’495
Patent is invalid, it arose out of the same facts and circumstances at issue in the original
complaint—O2COOL owns the ’495 Patent and claims that Discovery and
MerchSource’s misting fan infringes on that patent. The factual allegations were the same
5
in both complaints, and therefore the amended complaint relates back, and the California
Lawsuit was the first-filed lawsuit.
II. Equitable Factors Do Not Favor Maintaining the Lawsuit in this District.
Equitable factors can in certain circumstances outweigh the general rule favoring
the forum of the first-filed lawsuit. The parties agree that the Court should look at five
equitable factors to determine whether to overrule the presumption that this lawsuit
should be dismissed in favor of the California Lawsuit: “(1) jurisdiction over the parties,
(2) judicial efficiencies and economics, (3) conveniences to the parties, (4) availability
and convenience of witnesses, and (5) the extent to which the declaratory judgment
action filed in another forum is anticipatory and motivated by forum shopping.”
Vanguard Prods. Grp., Inc. v. Protex Int’l Corp., No. 05-6310, 2006 WL 695700, *4
(N.D. Ill. Mar. 14, 2006).
Because both districts have jurisdiction over the parties, the first equitable factor
is neutral between deciding the case here or in the Central District of California.
The second factor, judicial efficiencies and economics, is also neutral. Either
district can determine the parties’ rights with respect to the ’495 Patent equally
efficiently. And although O2COOL argues that other judges within this district have had
occasion to interpret the claims of the ’495 Patent, that fact provides no special insight to
this judge; any other opinions that have reviewed that patent are equally available to the
district judge in California.
The third and fourth factors, convenience of the parties and of witnesses, are also
neutral. While this district is more convenient to O2COOL (which is based in Chicago),
the Central District of California is more convenient to MerchSource (which is based in
Orange County, California). O2COOL’s evidence and witnesses, including an inventor of
6
the ’495 Patent who is technically a third-party witness, are located in Chicago, but
MerchSource’s evidence and witnesses are located in California. Although O2COOL
notes that Discovery is based in Maryland, Discovery merely licenses its brand to the
allegedly infringing misting fan, and therefore it will likely not be the focus of significant
pre-trial discovery. Therefore, neither district is substantially more convenient, and these
factors do not weigh in favor of rejecting the forum of the first-filed complaint.
Finally, the fifth factor also fails to provide a sufficient basis for violating the
general rule. Declaratory judgment actions “are by nature ‘anticipatory,’ and . . . there is a
natural desire by all parties to select a preferred forum and gain the initiative of being a
plaintiff.” Brower v. Flint Ink Corp., 865 F. Supp. 564, 571 (N.D. Iowa 1994); Viacom
Int’l Inc. v. Melvin Simon Prods., Inc., 774 F. Supp. 858, 867 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). This
lawsuit is no different. Discovery and MerchSource, after becoming aware of O2COOL’s
flawed attempt to add them as defendants to the Windy City Lawsuit, seized the initiative
by filing the California Lawsuit. But the mere fact that the California Lawsuit was
arguably anticipatory “does not, alone, warrant making an exception to the first-to-file
rule.” Vanguard, 2006 WL 695700 at *6; see also Electronics for Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle,
394 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (reversing district court order dismissing
declaratory judgment lawsuit as “anticipatory”). That is especially true in this case, where
Discovery and MerchSource did not engage in the type of forum shopping that the
Federal Circuit has denounced, whereby a party scours the country for a forum where
“the law or judiciary is more favorable to [its] cause.” RoadMaster Corp. v. Nordictrack,
Inc., No. 93-1260, 1993 WL 625537 *3 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 20, 1993). Rather, Discovery and
MerchSource filed in MerchSource’s home district because that district would be most
7
convenient for them. See Genentech, 998 F.2d at 938 (finding that Indiana company that
filed suit in Indiana was not “forum shopping” in the sense that would require dismissal
of the lawsuit). O2COOL presumably filed its lawsuit in this district for precisely the
same reason. That the California Lawsuit was arguably anticipatory does not overcome
the first-to-file rule where no additional factors support maintaining the dispute in this
district rather than in the Central District of California. Vanguard, 2006 WL 695700 at
*6.
For these reasons, the equitable factors are insufficient to overcome the general
rule that a patent infringement suit should be decided in the first-filed forum. Therefore,
the Court will dismiss this lawsuit on the basis that the California Lawsuit was first-filed.
***
For all of these reasons, the Court grants Discovery and MerchSource’s motion to
dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3). The dismissal is without prejudice regarding
O2COOL’s claims, but with prejudice as to venue. Because it dismisses the lawsuit, the
Court need not decide whether the case should be transferred.
Date: January 15, 2013
John J. Tharp, Jr.
United States District Judge
8
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?