FYI, I will be speaking on “Antitrust Issues in Intellectual Property Licensing Transactions” on November 6, 2013 at 1:00 P.M. Eastern Time. Here is a link to the webinar program. I will be covering the Nine “No-Nos” of antitrust/intellectual property licensing, which I’ve written about previously in this blog.
Archives for October 2013
Probably not, but UPA claims can be tough to defeat at the motion to dismiss stage. Witness Rheumatology Diagnostics Laboratory, Inc. v. Aetna, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151128 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2013) (Orrick, J.), where the court dismissed many of the plaintiffs’ Sherman Act Section 1 and Section 2 claims. However, the court refused to dismiss the plaintiffs’ below-cost pricing claims against Quest Diagnostics under the UPA, reasoning:
The UPA “appears to be a painstaking endeavor by the legislature to combat the abuses which the business interests have deemed unfair practices in the competitive field.” To require the plaintiffs to plead with an unreasonable degree of specificity would undermine the UPA’s admonition that the statute “shall be liberally construed that its beneficial purposes may be subserved.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17002. Much of the information that must be pleaded—Quest’s costs and the prices it charges by product—is in Quest’s hands and not easily accessed by the plaintiffs. The Court does not “forget that proceeding to [ ] discovery can be expensive” or that the plaintiffs must meet their burden under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. However, even in a case where the plaintiff “fail[ed] to allege a definite cost of doing business,” the California Court of Appeal held that “it would serve no useful purpose to require a speculative allegation of cost which adds nothing to the notice given by the pleadings in their present state. Accordingly, we view the present pleadings as sufficient under section 17043 and find error in sustaining the demurrer thereto.”
In sum, “the determination of cost is best approached on a case-by-case basis.” So long as the method used was not “arbitrary or irrational,” it is sufficient for pleading purposes. Finding that the plaintiffs adequately plead their UPA claim based on the information alleged in the [complaint] does not mean that the information or calculations provided are necessarily correct or even that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in proving their claim. Quest may dispute the details of the calculation method later to the trier of fact. However, the purpose of pleading is to put a defendant on sufficient notice of its alleged wrongdoing, and the plaintiffs have done so here.
(Citations omitted). This liberal standard – coupled with the fact that a UPA plaintiff probably need not prove a dangerous probability of recoupment after the predatory period, a requirement under federal law – makes it difficult to target these claims on a motion to dismiss.
In Surface Supplied, Inc. v. Kirby Morgan Dive Systems, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143478 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2013) (Chesney, J.), the Court dismissed attempted monopolization and monopolization counterclaims with leave to amend. The Court found a number of defects in the claims, which were grounded in allegations that Kirby had filed anticompetitive litigation.
The Court drew a sharp line between two types of sham litigation claims. If the alleged anticompetitive behavior consists of bringing a single sham lawsuit (or a small number of such suits), the antitrust plaintiff must demonstrate that the lawsuit was (1) objectively baseless and (2) a concealed attempt to interfere with the plaintiff’s business relationships. Kottle v. Nw. Kidney Centers, 146 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 1988). On the other hand, if the alleged anticompetitive behavior is the filing of a series of lawsuits, the question becomes not whether any one of them has merit – some may turn out to, just as a matter of chance – but whether they are brought pursuant to a policy of starting legal proceedings without regard to the merits and for the purpose of injuring a market rival. See id.
SSI alleged a “pattern and practice” of filing a series of lawsuits, but identified only two. Therefore, the Court held, it had not alleged a series-type sham litigation claim. But if SSI intended to rest its claim on anticompetitive behavior from the two lawsuits it expressly referenced, it failed to plead any facts showing those lawsuits to be objectively baseless. “In sum, SSI fails to adequately plead the first element of a claim for attempt to monopolize.” (The monopolization claim failed for the same reason.)
In short, “sham” litigation claims require appropriate factual support – conclusory, naked allegations are often insufficient.