Shock Doctor, Inc. v. Battle Sports Science, LLC et al

Filing 22

ORDER denying 10 Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, to Transfer Venue(Written Opinion) Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 1/6/2017. (DLO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 16-2908(DSD/FLN)
Shock Doctor, Inc.
Plaintiff,
v.
Battle Sports Science, LLC,
and Active Brands Company, LLC,
Defendants.
James R. Steffen, Esq., Peter M. Routhier, Esq. and Faegre
Baker Daniels, LLP, 90 South 7th Street, Suite 2200,
Minneapolis, MN 55402, counsel for plaintiff.
Aaron A. Myers, Esq., Niall A. MacLeod, Esq. and Kutak Rock,
LLP, 220 South Sixth Street, Suite 1750, Minneapolis, MN
55402, counsel for defendants.
This matter is before the court upon the motion to dismiss or,
in the alternative, to transfer venue by defendants Battle Sports
Science, LLC and Active Brands Company, LLC.

Based on a review of

the file, record, and proceedings herein, and for the following
reasons, the court denies the motion.
This dispute arises out of defendants’ production and sale of
a line of “Oxygen” mouthguards that are sold in competition with
plaintiff Shock Doctor Inc.’s “Max Airflow” mouthguards.
17.

Compl. ¶

Shock Doctor argues that the defendants’ advertising claims

are false and, on August 29, 2016, brought claims for false
advertising, violations of the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices
Act, and unfair competition.

See ECF No. 1.

Before Shock Doctor filed its complaint, Battle Sports filed
suit against Shock Doctor in the District of Nebraska, alleging
patent

infringement,

trade

dress

infringement,

trademark

infringement, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment.

See

Battle Sports Science, LLC v. Shock Doctor, Inc., No. 8:16CV352,
2016 WL 7046643, at *1 (D. Neb. Dec. 2, 2016).
On September 22, 2016, Active Brands and Battle Sports filed
the instant motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, to transfer
venue to the District of Nebraska.

While the motion was pending,

on October 7, 2016, Shock Doctor filed a similar motion in the
Nebraska case to dismiss, or in the alternative, to transfer venue
to the District of Minnesota.

See id. at *2.

The Nebraska court,

among other things, transferred the action to the District of
Minnesota after weighing the factors provided in Terra Int’l, Inc.
v. Miss. Chem. Corp., 119 F.3d 688 (8th Cir. 1997).

See id. at

*11-13.
The parties agree that it would be convenient to consolidate
the Nebraska and Minnesota litigation concerning the Oxygen and Max
Airflow mouthguards.

In light of the Nebraska court’s decision to

transfer the Nebraska litigation to Minnesota, the interests of
judicial economy weigh heavily against transfer.

2

Accordingly, based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer
venue [ECF No. 10] is denied.

Dated: January 6, 2017
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court

3