Lynx System Developers, Inc. et al v. Zebra Enterprise Solutions Corporation et al
Filing
70
Judge George A. OToole, Jr: OPINION AND ORDER entered granting 64 Motion for Leave to File Document ; Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document.; denying 32 Motion to Dismiss (Lyness, Paul)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-12297-GAO
LYNX SYSTEM DEVELOPERS, INC. and
ISOLYNX, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ZEBRA ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS CORPORATION,
ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, and ZIH CORP.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
March 23, 2016
O’TOOLE, D.J.
This case concerns alleged trade secret misappropriation, questions of patent inventorship,
and a number of other claims arising from the relationship of the involved companies. The basic
complaint by the plaintiffs, Lynx System Developers, Inc. and IsoLynx, LLC (collectively
“Lynx”), is that the defendants, Zebra Enterprise Solutions Corp., Zebra Technologies Corp., and
ZIH Corp. (collectively “Zebra”), misappropriated Lynx’s technology and cut Lynx out of a deal
with the National Football League (“NFL”). In very brief terms, Lynx alleges that it entered into
agreements with Zebra to use the latter’s hardware to develop software and hardware modifications
for radio-frequency identification (“RFID”) chips. These modifications facilitate the tracking in
real time of NFL players, footballs, officials, and the like during an official game. Lynx states that
this development required a significant investment of time and money on its part in order to
overcome a variety of technical hurdles.
Lynx System Developers, Inc. and Zebra Enterprise Solutions Corp. entered into three
agreements governing various aspects of their relationship. Relevant here, those contracts contain
choice of law clauses referencing California law. In addition, in one of the contracts, the signatories
promise to keep each other’s information confidential.
Lynx has asserted a number of claims, both state and federal, against Zebra. It demands
that certain patents owned by Zebra be corrected to reflect their joint invention by Lynx employees.
Lynx also seeks damages for breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation, fraud, conversion,
interference with business relationships, breach of fiduciary duty, and unfair business practices.
Zebra has moved to dismiss nearly all the claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted and, for the state law claims, lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The issues raised in
that motion have been extensively briefed, and a hearing was held on the matter.
In its Complaint, Lynx founded jurisdiction upon the presence of federal questions, see 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), and supplemental jurisdiction, see id. § 1367(a). At the hearing, I inquired
whether diversity jurisdiction is applicable to this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Lynx has since
moved for leave to file an amended complaint which clearly alleges diversity jurisdiction. Lynx
additionally filed briefing addressing the issue. Zebra does not strictly oppose the motion, but
stated that it reserves the right to move to dismiss at a later date on jurisdictional grounds.
Because the proposed amended complaint is otherwise identical to the current version, I
briefly address the merits of Zebra’s arguments for dismissal here.
I.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
The proposed amended complaint makes clear that diversity jurisdiction exists in this case.
Based on their state of incorporation and principal place of business, the Zebra defendants are all
corporations domiciled in California, Delaware, or Illinois. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c). For the
plaintiffs, Lynx System Developers, Inc. is a corporation domiciled in Massachusetts by both state
of incorporation and location of its principle place of business.
2
The final party, IsoLynx, LLC, is, unlike the other parties, not a corporation but a limited
liability company. Diversity for LLCs is determined by the citizenship of its members, not by the
state of its formation. See Pramco, LLC ex rel. CFSC Consortium, LLC v. San Juan Bay Marina,
Inc., 435 F.3d 51, 54–55 (1st Cir. 2006). While IsoLynx may be organized under the laws of
Delaware, its members—Lynx System Developers, Inc. and an individual, Ed Evansen—are
citizens of Massachusetts. Thus, IsoLynx is regarded as a citizen of Massachusetts for diversity
purposes. See id. As the Supreme Court recently put it: “While humans and corporations can assert
their own citizenship, other entities take the citizenship of their members.” Americold Realty Trust
v. Conagra Foods, Inc., No. 14-1382, 2016 WL 854159, at *2 (U.S. Mar. 7, 2016).
Thus, the plaintiffs are diverse from the defendants. Given the nature of the claims and the
arguments presented in the briefs and at the hearing, the amount in controversy is clearly met.
Diversity jurisdiction exists for all claims in this case.
II.
Viability of Claims
Zebra raises a number of challenges to Lynx’s claims, arguing that all except the breach of
contract claim should be dismissed. At the motion to dismiss stage, a complaint must only show a
“plausible” entitlement to relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–78 (2009). Here, while
some claims may be more likely to succeed than others, Lynx’s lengthy pleadings have
satisfactorily alleged plausible claims for relief. Enough factual conduct has been alleged to fairly
raise whether Zebra’s technology improperly incorporates earlier innovations by Lynx. This case
should move forward to discovery.
Zebra also raises challenges to these claims on the basis that California law, rather than
Massachusetts law, should govern. Choice of law analysis should only be undertaken when an
“actual conflict” exists between the substantive laws of the interested jurisdictions. Levin v. Dalva
3
Bros., Inc., 459 F.3d 68, 73 (1st Cir. 2006). Even under California law, the claims generally
involving trade secret misappropriation have been adequately pled. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §
2019.210 (West) (requiring that a plaintiff “identify the trade secret with reasonable particularity”).
While some claims currently styled in the Complaint as distinct torts may, if California law were
to apply, need to be brought under the umbrella of that state’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act, the
factual allegations would still raise valid claims, even if they had to be reformulated. How and in
what fashion each state’s laws apply is not determinative at this early stage of whether this case
moves forward. If necessary, choice of law analysis will be conducted at a later time.
III.
Conclusion
The defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (dkt. no. 32) is DENIED. The plaintiffs’ Motion for
Leave to File a First Amended Complaint Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) (dkt. no. 64) is GRANTED.
It is SO ORDERED.
/s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr.
United States District Judge
4
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?