News & Updates From Docket Navigator

Petroleum Refiners’ Idling of Tankers and Unnecessary Shutdown of Refineries Support Sherman § 1 Conspiracy Allegation to Manipulate California Petroleum Market

The court denied petroleum refiner defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's Sherman § 1 claim and determined plaintiff sufficiently asserted concerted activities against the economic self interest of the defendants absent conspiracy. "Defendants' actions, as alleged, were extreme. For example, in October of 2012, Defendants ran on the market after advance notice from Exxon of the power failure at its Torrance refinery, causing a price increase even before the power failure was announced to the public. In the absence of an agreement, Defendants' run on the market would be against their individual self-interest in the extreme, as their inventories were high, [...]

2018-06-22T12:20:03+00:00 June 22nd, 2018|Antitrust, Docket Report|

Dentist’s Before-and-After Photographs of Patient’s Teeth Not Sufficiently Creative Nor Original for Copyrightability​

The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment that a plaintiff dentist's photographs of a patient's teeth were not copyrightable. "There is . . . only so much to argue about the creativity and originality of close-up photographs of teeth. . . . [Plaintiff's] described process involves no 'creative spark.' [Plaintiff] does not know what type of camera he used—or even if it was a digital camera or one requiring film. He does not know if [the] patient . . . was sitting or standing when he photographed her mouth. To the extent he posed her for the camera, it [...]

2018-06-22T12:08:02+00:00 June 22nd, 2018|Copyright, Docket Report|

Cease-and-Desist Letter as Sole Showing of Enforcement Activities Within Forum Do Not Support Jurisdiction for Declaratory Judgment Suit

The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's Lanham Act declaratory judgment suit and determined that defendant's alleged "other activities" connecting it with the forum were not sufficiently connected with the suit. "Examples of other activities that, when combined with cease-and-desist letters, could be sufficient for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant in this kind of action can include initiating judicial or extra-judicial enforcement proceedings within the forum or entering into an exclusive license agreement . . . . In contrast, a declaratory action for non-infringement 'neither directly arises out of nor relates to the making, using, [...]

2018-06-22T12:05:02+00:00 June 22nd, 2018|Docket Report, Trademark|

Seven Month Delay While Actively Litigating Waives Venue Challenge

The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue because defendants waived their venue challenge through their litigation conduct. "⁠[D]uring the seven months after the [TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017)] decision, [defendants] were actively litigating this case in this District. . . . [M]otions for summary judgment were denied. . . . A Claim Construction Order was issued shortly thereafter. . . . [Defendants] also filed two new motions for summary judgment before filing this Motion. . . . This procedural history reflects the type of 'tactical wait-and-see [...]

2018-06-22T12:01:04+00:00 June 22nd, 2018|Docket Report, Patent|

Seven Month Delay Alone Does Not Waive Venue Challenge

The court granted defendant's motion to transfer for improper venue and rejected plaintiff's argument that defendant waived its venue challenge. "Plaintiff does not appear to challenge the contention that venue in this Court is improper. Rather, Plaintiff argues that . . . Defendant forfeited its privilege to challenge venue by waiting nearly seven months after the [TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017)] decision to file its motion. . . . [D]espite Defendant’s delay in filing the instant motion, Plaintiff cites no undue prejudice caused by the delay; nor can the Court discern [...]

2018-06-22T12:01:03+00:00 June 22nd, 2018|Docket Report, Patent|

​In re Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation Established, Interim Counsel Appointed, in SDNY

The court granted plaintiffs' motion to consolidate six actions into one consolidated class action proceeding under Rule 42(a). "A Master Docket and Master File are hereby established for the Consolidated Action. The Master File number shall be 18-cv-02830 (JPO). A Master Docket will be maintained for the Related Actions with all entries to be docketed under the Master File number. . . . The Consolidated Action shall be referred to as: In re Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation, and every pleading or other paper filed in the Consolidated Action shall bear [such] caption . . . ." Oklahoma Firefighters Pension [...]

2018-06-21T12:03:03+00:00 June 21st, 2018|Antitrust, Docket Report|

Standing Argument Based on Registration, Without Regard for Subsequent Exclusive Licenses, ​Deemed Objectively Unreasonable Under § 505

After the court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment that plaintiff lacked standing to bring its infringement claim, the court partially granted defendant's motion for attorney fees and found plaintiff's standing argument to be objectively unreasonable. "⁠[Plaintiff] argues that [defendant] did not achieve 'complete' success because [defendant's] summary judgment victory was based on standing. This argument is rejected. Numerous courts, including the Ninth Circuit, have awarded fees under Section 505 when summary judgment was granted based on standing. . . . At summary judgment [plaintiff] asserted that it owned the copyright because it had the original copyright registration. According to [...]

2018-06-21T11:55:03+00:00 June 21st, 2018|Copyright, Docket Report|

Lanham Act Suit Attacking Advertisement of Defendant’s Drug as Equivalent to Plaintiff’s Not Precluded by FDCA

The court denied defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's false advertising claim regarding defendant's assertion its drug was equivalent to plaintiff's and rejected the argument that plaintiff's claim was precluded by the FDCA. "The Court finds [plaintiff's] claim that [defendant's] advertising that [defendant's product] Hemmorex is equivalent to [plaintiff's product] Anucort does not require FDA action and is within this Court’s purview. The issue here is not whether the FDA should deem [defendant's] product to be a 'generic' version of [plaintiff's] product; instead, the issue is whether, by advertising and marketing Hemmorex as 'equivalent to or substitutable' for Anucort when the [...]

2018-06-21T11:52:03+00:00 June 21st, 2018|Docket Report, Trademark|

Common Interest Doctrine Does Not Apply to Unrepresented Parties

The court granted plaintiff's motion to compel the production of an email with a third party manufacturer that defendants clawed back under the common interest privilege because the manufacturer was not represented by counsel. "There is support for the position that all parties must be represented by counsel for the common interest exception to apply. . . . The requirement that each party to a common interest arrangement have an attorney also comports with the intent behind the common interest privilege, to permit attorneys to develop a joint legal strategy. . . . While this Court was not able to [...]

2018-06-21T11:48:03+00:00 June 21st, 2018|Docket Report, Patent|

News Report that Uber’s Global Costs Exceeded its Revenues Does Not Support Predatory Pricing Claim in Market for City of Boston

The court granted defendant Uber's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended Sherman § 2 complaint because plaintiffs did not sufficiently plead a predatory pricing claim. "Plaintiffs do not allege that Uber’s services were priced below Uber’s costs. . . . The second amended complaint alleges that Uber 'deflated the UberX fares to below cost in order to drive out the taxi drivers.' But such 'threadbare recitals of a cause of action’s elements, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice' to survive the motion to dismiss stage. . . . Basic facts such as what an average or median 'ride' in [...]

2018-06-20T12:31:02+00:00 June 20th, 2018|Antitrust, Docket Report|