Case 3:19-cv-07651-EMC Document 111 Filed 02/04/20 Page 1 of 62
`
`
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`Morgan Chu (SBN 70446)
`Benjamin W. Hattenbach (SBN 186455)
`A. Matthew Ashley (SBN 198235)
`Michael D. Harbour (SBN 298185)
`Olivia Weber (SBN 319918)
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, California 90067-4276
`Telephone:
`(310) 277-1010
`Facsimile:
`(310) 203-7199
`Email: mchu@irell.com
`Email: bhattenbach@irell.com
`Email: mashley@irell.com
`Email: oweber@irell.com
`Email: mharbour@irell.com
`Counsel for Defendants
`FORTRESS INVESTMENT GROUP LLC,
`FORTRESS CREDIT CO. LLC,
`VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC
`
`PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
`GARRISON LLP
`Martin Flumenbaum (pro hac vice pending)
`1285 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10019-6064
`Telephone:
`(212) 373-3191
`Facsimile:
`(212) 492-0191
`Email: mflumenbaum@paulweiss.com
`Counsel for Defendants
`FORTRESS INVESTMENT GROUP LLC,
`FORTRESS CREDIT CO. LLC
`
`Additional counsel listed on signature page
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
` Case No. 3:19-cv-07651-EMC
`INTEL CORPORATION and APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`v.
`AND TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’
`COMPLAINT
`FORTRESS INVESTMENT GROUP LLC,
`FORTRESS CREDIT CO. LLC, UNILOC
`
`2017 LLC, UNILOC USA, INC., UNILOC
`Hon. Edward M. Chen
`LUXEMBOURG S.A.R.L., VLSI
`
`TECHNOLOGY LLC, INVT SPE LLC,
`Date: April 23, 2020
`INVENTERGY GLOBAL, INC., DSS
`Time: 1:30 p.m.
`TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, INC., IXI
`Dept.: Courtroom 5
`IP, LLC, and SEVEN NETWORKS, LLC,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`10794413
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
`DISMISS AND TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:19-cv-07651-EMC
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07651-EMC Document 111 Filed 02/04/20 Page 2 of 62
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, at 1:30 p.m. on April 23, 2020, in Courtroom 5, 17th
`floor of 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, before the Honorable Judge Edward
`M. Chen, Defendants Fortress Investment Group LLC (“Fortress”), Fortress Credit Co. LLC
`(“Fortress Credit”), Uniloc 2017 LLC (“Uniloc 2017”), Uniloc USA, Inc. (“Uniloc USA”), Uniloc
`Luxembourg S.a.r.l. (“Uniloc Luxembourg”), VLSI Technology LLC (“VLSI”), INVT SPE LLC
`(“INVT”), Inventergy Global, Inc. (“Inventergy”), DSS Technology Management, Inc. (“DSS”),
`IXI IP LLC (“IXI”), and Seven Networks, LLC (“Seven Networks” and collectively
`“Defendants”) will appear and move to dismiss and to strike the Complaint of Plaintiffs Apple Inc.
`(“Apple”) and Intel Corporation (“Intel” and collectively “Plaintiffs”). Specifically, Defendants
`move to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and move to
`strike Plaintiffs’ state law claims pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16. This
`motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the
`Declaration of Michael D. Harbour, Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice, and any other filing,
`evidence, or argument presented in this matter.
`Defendants will be entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs if they prevail on their
`motion to strike. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(c)(1). Should Defendants prevail, they
`request that the amount of the award be reserved for later briefing following the April 23 hearing.
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`1. Whether Plaintiffs have pleaded a viable antitrust market or market power;
`2. Whether Plaintiffs have pleaded a cognizable antitrust injury;
`3. Whether the Noerr-Pennington doctrine bars Plaintiffs’ claims under Section 1 of the
`Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and California Business & Professions Code § 17200;
`4. Whether Plaintiffs have pleaded a viable Sherman Act Section 1 claim;
`5. Whether Plaintiffs have pleaded a viable Clayton Act Section 7 claim, 15 U.S.C. § 18;
`6. Whether Plaintiffs’ California state law claims should be stricken under California’s Anti-
`SLAPP statute or alternatively dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6); and
`7. Whether some of Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the relevant statute of limitations periods.
`
`10794413
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:19-cv-07651-EMC
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 3:19-cv-07651-EMC Document 111 Filed 02/04/20 Page 3 of 62
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
`THE COMPLAINT ............................................................................................................. 4
`A.
`The Alleged “Scheme” ............................................................................................ 4
`B.
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed Market And Fortress’s Alleged “Market Power” ................... 6
`C.
`Plaintiffs’ Alleged Injury ........................................................................................ 9
`PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO PLEAD A RELEVANT MARKET OR MARKET POWER ... 10
`A.
`The “Electronics Patents Market” Is Facially Unsustainable ................................ 10
`B.
`Plaintiffs’ Allegations Of Market Power Are Legally Deficient .......................... 14
`C.
`Apple’s “Input Technology Markets” Are Also Facially
`Unsustainable ........................................................................................................ 16
`PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO PLEAD AN ANTITRUST INJURY ......................................... 18
`Plaintiffs’ Purported Exposure To “Supracompetitive” License
`A.
`Rates Is Not Antitrust Injury ................................................................................. 19
`Plaintiffs’ Payment Of Litigation Costs Is Not An Antitrust Injury ..................... 23
`B.
`THE NOERR-PENNINGTON DOCTRINE BARS PLAINTIFFS’ SHERMAN ACT
`AND 17200 CLAIMS ....................................................................................................... 24
`Plaintiffs Do Not Allege That Defendants Compete With Plaintiffs
`A.
`Or Are Using The Litigation Process To Achieve An
`Anticompetitive Goal ............................................................................................ 26
`Plaintiffs Do Not Adequately Allege That Defendants’ Lawsuits Are
`Objectively Baseless ............................................................................................. 28
`PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO ALLEGE AN UNLAWFUL AGREEMENT ............................ 30
`PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE A CLAYTON ACT SECTION 7 CLAIM ................... 34
`Plaintiffs’ Alleged Injury Is Not The Result Of Alleged Patent
`A.
`Acquisitions ........................................................................................................... 35
`Plaintiffs’ Section 7 Claim Is Time-Barred ........................................................... 38
`B.
`VIII. PLAINTIFFS’ SECTION 17200 CLAIMS SHOULD BE STRICKEN UNDER
`CALIFORNIA’S ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE OR ALTERNATIVELY DISMISSED ...... 39
`A.
`Plaintiffs’ Section 17200 Claims Arise From Protected Activity ......................... 40
`B.
`Plaintiffs’ Section 17200 Claims Fail As A Matter Of Law ................................. 40
`Plaintiffs’ 17200 Claims Are Barred By The Litigation
`1.
`Privilege .................................................................................................... 41
`
`B.
`
`VI.
`VII.
`
`10794413
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:19-cv-07651-EMC
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07651-EMC Document 111 Filed 02/04/20 Page 4 of 62
`
`Page
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs Are Not Entitled To Any Remedy Available Under
`The UCL .................................................................................................... 42
`Plaintiffs’ Section 17200 Claims Fail To State A Claim .......................... 43
`3.
`Alternatively, Plaintiffs’ Section 17200 Claims Should Be
`Dismissed .............................................................................................................. 45
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 45
`
`C.
`
`IX.
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`10794413
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:19-cv-07651-EMC
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07651-EMC Document 111 Filed 02/04/20 Page 5 of 62
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`49er Chevrolet, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp.,
`803 F.2d 1463 (9th Cir. 1986) ....................................................................................................31
`
`Action Apartment Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Santa Monica,
`41 Cal. 4th 1232 (2007) ..............................................................................................................41
`
`Adobe Sys. Inc. v. Coffee Cup Partners, Inc.,
`No. C 11-2243 CW, 2012 WL 3877783 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2012) .........................20, 23, 26, 28
`
`Analogix Semiconductor, Inc. v. Silicon Image, Inc.,
`No. C 08-2917 JF (PVT), 2008, WL 8096149 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2008) .................................12
`
`Apple Inc. and ZTE (USA) Inc. v. INVT SPE LLC,
`No. IPR2018-01474 (Mar. 5, 2019) .............................................................................................6
`
`Apple Inc. and ZTE (USA) Inc. v. INVT SPE LLC,
`No. IPR2018-01478 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2019) .............................................................................6
`
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2011 WL 4948567 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2011) ...................................45
`
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 1672493 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2012) ...................................17
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`No. IPR2017-01993 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2019) ..............................................................................6
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.,
`No. IPR2017-02202 (P.T.A.B. May 1, 2018) ..............................................................................6
`
`Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. v. Lang,
`No. C 14-0909 CW, 2014 WL 6816644 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2014) ............................................41
`
`Atl. Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co.,
`495 U.S. 328 (1990) ...................................................................................................................21
`
`Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Amphastar Pharm., Inc.,
`No. 5:03-00887-MRP PLA, 2009 WL 8727693 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2009) ..............................23
`
`BE & K Const. Co. v. NLRB,
`536 U.S. 516 (2002) ...................................................................................................................24
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .............................................................................................................16, 22
`
`10794413
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:19-cv-07651-EMC
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07651-EMC Document 111 Filed 02/04/20 Page 6 of 62
`
`Page
`
`Brantley v. NBC Universal, Inc.,
`675 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 2012) ....................................................................................................21
`
`Brullotte v. Thys Co.,
`379 U.S. 29 (1964) .....................................................................................................................22
`
`Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.,
`429 U.S. 477 (1977) .............................................................................................................18, 21
`
`Brunswick Corp. v. Riegel Textile Corp.,
`752 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1984) ......................................................................................................34
`
`Carefusion Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc.,
`No. 10-CV-01111-LHK, 2010 WL 4509821 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2010) ....................................33
`
`Catch Curve, Inc. v. Venali, Inc.,
`No. 05-CV-04820-DDP-AJWX, 2008 WL 11334024 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2008) ......................25
`
`Certain LTE- and 3G-Compliant Cellular Communications Devices,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1138 (Sept. 13, 2019), Order No. 52 ................................................................6
`
`Chip-Mender, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co.,
`No. 05-3465-PJH, 2006 WL 13058 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2006) ....................................................19
`
`Chipman v. Nelson,
`2013 WL 1007285, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2013), adopted by, 2013 WL
`1284330 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2013) ............................................................................................45
`
`ChriMar Sys. v. Cisco Sys.,
`72 F. Supp. 3d 1012 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .......................................................................................17
`
`Church & Dwight Co. v. Mayer Labs., Inc.,
`No. 10-CV-4429 EMC, 2011 WL 1225912 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2011) .......................................18
`
`City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advert Inc.,
`499 U.S. 365 (1991) ...................................................................................................................27
`
`Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Prof’l Real Estate Inv’rs, Inc.,
`944 F.2d 1525 (9th Cir. 1991) ....................................................................................................25
`
`Columbia River People’s Util. Dist. v. Portland Gen. Elec. Co.,
`217 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2000) ....................................................................................................33
`
`Complete Entm’t Res. LLC v. Live Nation Entm’t, Inc.,
`No. CV 15-9814 DSF, 2016 WL 3457177 (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2016) ......................................38
`
`Dang v. San Francisco Forty-Niners,
`964 F. Supp. 2d 1097 (N.D. Cal. 2013) .....................................................................................19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`10794413
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:19-cv-07651-EMC
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07651-EMC Document 111 Filed 02/04/20 Page 7 of 62
`
`Page
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Darba Enterprises, Inc. v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co.,
`No. 2:12-cv-00043-LRH-GWF 2012 WL 3096709 (D. Nev. July 30, 2012) ............................29
`
`Delano Farms Co. v. California Table Grape Comm’n,
`655 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..................................................................................................12
`
`Digital Sun v. The Toro Co.,
`No. 10-CV-4567-LHK, 2011 WL 1044502 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2011) ....................................16
`
`Dole Valve Co. v. Perfection Bar Equip., Inc.,
`311 F. Supp. 459 (N.D. Ill. 1970) ..............................................................................................37
`
`Dove Audio, Inc. v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman,
`47 Cal. App. 4th 777 (1996) .......................................................................................................41
`
`Eastman Kodak Co. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.,
`114 F.3d 1547 (Fed. Cir. 1997), abrogated on other grounds, Cybor Corp. v.
`FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ......................................................................36
`
`Elecs. For Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle,
`No. 01-CV-4853MJJ, 2005 WL 1661958 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2005) ........................................26
`
`Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Dermer,
`No. SACV 18-1562 JVS, 2019 WL 4187466 (C.D. Cal. July 22, 2019) ...................................26
`
`ERBE Elektromedizin GmbH v. Canady Tech. LLC,
`629 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..................................................................................................27
`
`Feldman v. 1100 Park Lane Assocs.,
`160 Cal. App. 4th 1467 (2008) ...................................................................................................40
`
`Fitbit, Inc. v. Laguna 2, LLC,
`No. 17-CV-00079-EMC, 2018 WL 306724 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2018) .................................26, 29
`
`Formula One Licensing v. Purple Interactive,
`No. 00-CV-2222-MMC, 2001 WL 34792530 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2001) ...................................29
`
`Franchise Realty Interstate Corp. v. San Francisco Local Joint Exec. Bd. of
`Culinary Workers,
`542 F.2d 1076 (9th Cir. 1976) ....................................................................................................27
`
`Gen-Probe, Inc. v. Amoco Corp.,
`926 F. Supp. 948 (S.D. Cal. 1996) .......................................................................................25, 28
`
`Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elan Computer Grp., Inc.,
`362 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ..................................................................................................25
`
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd.,
`No. 15-634, 2017 WL 750700 (D. Del. Feb. 27, 2017), adopted by, 2017 WL
`1055958 (D. Del. Mar. 20, 2017) ...................................................................................18, 44, 45
`
`10794413
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:19-cv-07651-EMC
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07651-EMC Document 111 Filed 02/04/20 Page 8 of 62
`
`Page
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Golden Gate Pharmacy Servs., Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc.,
`433 F. App’x 598 (9th Cir. 2011) .........................................................................................11, 13
`
`Grand River Enters. v. King,
`783 F. Supp. 2d 516 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ........................................................................................20
`
`Greater Los Angeles Agency on Deafness, Inc. v. Cable News Network, Inc.,
`742 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 2014) ......................................................................................................40
`
`Handgards, Inc. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`601 F.2d 986 (9th Cir. 1979) ......................................................................................................24
`
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Repeat-O-Type Stencil Mfg.,
`No. C-92-3330-DLJ, 1995 WL 552168 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 1995) ..........................................29
`
`Hicks v. PGA Tour, Inc.,
`897 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2018) ....................................................................................................10
`
`In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litig.,
`856 F. Supp. 2d 1103 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .....................................................................................43
`
`Iglesia Ni Cristo v. Cayabyab,
`No. 18-CV-00561-BLF, 2018 WL 4674603 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2018) ...................................40
`
`Int’l Longshore & Warehouse Union v. ICTSI Oregon, Inc.,
`863 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2017) ....................................................................................................25
`
`Int’l Television Prods. Ltd. v. Twentieth Century-Fox Television,
`622 F. Supp. 1532 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) ...........................................................................................13
`
`Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLC.,
`No. IPR2018-01038 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 4, 2018) ..............................................................................6
`
`Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLC.,
`No. IPR2018-01296 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2019) ............................................................................6
`
`Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLC.,
`No. IPR2019-00034 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2019) ............................................................................6
`
`Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLC.,
`No. IPR2019-01196 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 7, 2020) ...............................................................................6
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
`280 F. Supp. 3d 691 (D. Md. 2017) ...........................................................................................27
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
`No. 1:13-CV-00740-AJT, 2013 WL 6682981 (E.D. Va. Dec. 18, 2013) .......................... passim
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp. et al,
`No. 18-1367, Dkt. 41 (May 11, 2018) ........................................................................................27
`
`10794413
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:19-cv-07651-EMC
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07651-EMC Document 111 Filed 02/04/20 Page 9 of 62
`
`Page
`
`JM Comput. Servs., Inc. v. Schlumberger Techs., Inc.,
`No. C 95-20349 JW, 1996 WL 241607 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 1996) .............................................11
`
`Kane v. DeLong,
`No. C-12-5437 EMC, 2013 WL 1149801 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2013) .................................41, 42
`
`Kendall v. Visa U.S.A., Inc.,
`518 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2008) ..............................................................................................30, 31
`
`Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp.,
`416 U.S. 470 (1974) ...................................................................................................................43
`
`Korea Kumho Petrochemical v. Flexsys Am. LP,
`No. C07-01057 MJJ, 2007 WL 2318906 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2007) ........................................19
`
`Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. IPCom GmbH & Co.,
`No. 5:19-cv-01389 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2019) ............................................................................45
`
`Manley v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc.,
`No. 16-CV-03355-LHK, 2017 WL 151540 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2017) ................................15, 42
`
`Med Vets Inc. v. VIP Petcare Holdings, Inc.,
`No. 18-CV-02054-MMC, 2019 WL 1767335 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2019) .....................11, 13, 14
`
`Midwestern Mach. Co. v. Nw. Airlines, Inc.,
`392 F.3d 265 (8th Cir. 2004) ......................................................................................................38
`
`Minichino v. First California Realty,
`No. C-11-5185 EMC, 2012 WL 4364611 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2012) .......................................40
`
`Mitchell v. Reg’l Serv. Corp.,
`No. C 13-04212 JSW, 2014 WL 12607809 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2014) .....................................43
`
`Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Serv. Corp.,
`465 U.S. 752 (1984) ...................................................................................................................30
`
`In re Musical Instruments & Equip. Antitrust Litig.,
`798 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2015) ..............................................................................................30, 31
`
`Name.Space, Inc. v. Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers,
`795 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2015) ....................................................................................................31
`
`In the Matter of Negotiated Data Solutions LLC,
`File No. 051-0094 ................................................................................................................44, 45
`
`Nelson v. Pearson Ford Co.,
`186 Cal. App. 4th 983 (2010), reversed in part on other grounds by Raceway
`Ford Cases, 2 Cal.5th 161 (2016) ..............................................................................................43
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`10794413
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:19-cv-07651-EMC
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07651-EMC Document 111 Filed 02/04/20 Page 10 of 62
`
`Page
`
`Newcal Indus., Inc. v. Ikon Office Sol.,
`513 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2008) ..............................................................................................10, 11
`
`Nobelpharma AB v. Implant Innovations, Inc.,
`141 F.3d 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ..................................................................................................25
`
`NorthBay Healthcare Grp., Inc. v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc.,
`No. 17-CV-05005-LB, 2017 WL 6059299 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2017) ........................................33
`
`Oliver v. SD-3C LLC,
`751 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2014) ....................................................................................................38
`
`Oregon Nat. Res. Council v. Mohla,
`944 F.2d 531 (9th Cir. 1991) ......................................................................................................28
`
`Orion Elec. Co. v. Funai Elec. Co.,
`2002 WL 377541 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2002) .......................................................................18, 44
`
`Paladin Assocs., Inc. v. Montana Power Co.,
`328 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2003) ....................................................................................................14
`
`Person v. Google, Inc.,
`No. C 06–7297 JF RS, 2007 WL 832941 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2007) ........................................13
`
`Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc. v. Ctr. for Med. Progress,
`890 F.3d 828 (9th Cir. 2018), amended, 897 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir. 2018) ...................................41
`
`Plascencia v. Lending 1st Mortg.,
`583 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (N.D. Cal. 2008) .....................................................................................38
`
`Prime Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. Serv. Employees Int’l Union,
`No. 11-CV-2652-GPC-RBB, 2013 WL 3873074 (S.D. Cal. July 25, 2013),
`aff’d, 642 F. App’x 665 (9th Cir. 2016) ...............................................................................19, 20
`
`Prof’l Real Estate Inv’rs, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc.,
`508 U.S. 49 (1993) ............................................................................................................. passim
`
`PSKS, Inc. v. Leegin Creative Prods., Inc.,
`615 F.3d 412 (5th Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................13, 14
`
`Ramachandran v. City of Los Altos,
`359 F. Supp. 3d 801 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .................................................................................39, 40
`
`Realco Servs., Inc. v. Holt,
`479 F. Supp. 880 (E.D. Pa. 1979) ..............................................................................................27
`
`Rebel Oil Co., v. Atl. Richfield Co.,
`51 F.3d 1421 (9th Cir. 1995) ......................................................................................................23
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`10794413
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:19-cv-07651-EMC
`
`- viii -
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07651-EMC Document 111 Filed 02/04/20 Page 11 of 62
`
`Page
`
`Reudy v. Clear Channel Outdoors, Inc.,
`No. C-02-54380 SC, 2007 WL 9734455 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2007), adopted by,
`2007 WL 9735532 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2007) .............................................................................11
`
`Rick-Mik Enterprises, Inc. v. Equilon Enterprises LLC,
`532 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................15, 16
`
`Rothman v. Jackson,
`49 Cal. App. 4th 1134 (1996) .....................................................................................................42
`
`Rusheen v. Cohen,
`37 Cal. 4th 1048 (2006) ..............................................................................................................41
`
`Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery,
`829 F.2d 729 (9th Cir. 1987) ......................................................................................................34
`
`Saint Alphonsus Med. Center-Nampa Inc. v. St. Luke’s Health Sys., Ltd.,
`778 F.3d 775 (9th Cir. 2015) ......................................................................................................35
`
`Schauer v. Mandarin Gems of Cal., Inc.,
`125 Cal. App. 4th 949 (2005) .....................................................................................................43
`
`Schlafly v. Public Key Partners,
`No. 94-20512 SW, 1997 WL 564073 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 1997) ..............................................37
`
`SCM Corp. v. Xerox Corp.,
`645 F.2d 1195 (2d Cir. 1981) .....................................................................................................34
`
`Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc. v. Cabela’s, Inc.,
`No. 09-cv-102H (WMC), 2010 WL 6675046 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2010) ..................................12
`
`Seven Networks, LLC v. Google, LLC,
`No. 17-CV-00442-JRG (E.D. Tex. Jan. 18, 2019) Dkt. 607 ........................................................6
`
`Sheahan v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co.,
`394 F. Supp. 3d 997 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .....................................................................11, 14, 19, 24
`
`Sidibie v. Sutter Health,
`No. C 12–04854 LB, 2013 WL 2422752 (N.D. Cal. June 3, 2013) ...........................................13
`
`Silberg v. Anderson,
`50 Cal. 3d 205 (1990) .................................................................................................................42
`
`Sosa v. DirectTV, Inc.
`437 F.3d 923 (9th Cir. 2006) ......................................................................................................25
`
`Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif,
`39 Cal. 4th 260 (2006) ................................................................................................................40
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`10794413
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:19-cv-07651-EMC
`
`- ix -
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07651-EMC Document 111 Filed 02/04/20 Page 12 of 62
`
`Page
`
`Stearns v. Select Comfort Retail Corp.,
`No. 08-2746 JF, 2009 WL 1635931 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2009) ............................................21, 24
`
`Sumotext Corp. v. Zoove, Inc.,
`No. 16-CV-01370-BLF, 2017 WL 2774382 (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2017) ....................................33
`
`Surface Supplied, Inc. v. Kirby Morgan Dive Sys., Inc.,
`No. C-13-0575 MMC, 2013 WL 5496961 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2013) .........................................15
`
`Synopsys, Inc. v. ATopTech, Inc.,
`No. C 13-2965 MMC, 2015 WL 4719048 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2015) ........................................22
`
`In re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litig.,
`277 F. Supp. 2d 121 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) aff’d, 466 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2006) ................................37
`
`Tanaka v. Univ. of S. California,
`252 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2001) ..............................................................................................22, 30
`
`TCL Commc’ns Tech. Holdings, Ltd. v. Telefonaktienbolaget LM Ericsson,
`No. SACV 14-0341 JVS (DFMx) 2016 WL 7049263 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2016) ......................42
`
`The Jeanery, Inc. v. James Jeans, Inc.,
`849 F.2d 1148 (9th Cir. 1988) ....................................................................................................30
`
`Top Rank, Inc. v. Haymon,
`No. CV 15-4961-JFW, 2015 WL 9948936 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2015) ......................................15
`
`Toscano v. PGA Tour, Inc.,
`70 F. Supp. 2d 1109 (E.D. Cal. 1999), aff’d, 258 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2001) ..............................31
`
`Townshend v. Rockwell Int’l Corp.,
`No. C99-0400SBA, 2000 WL 433505 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2000) ............................................22
`
`Tyco Healthcare Grp. LP v. Mut. Pharm. Co.,
`762 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..................................................................................................28
`
`United States v. Marine Bancorporation, Inc.,
`418 U.S. 602 (1974) .............................................................................................................10, 20
`
`United Tactical Sys., LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc.,
`143 F. Supp. 3d 982 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .......................................................................................40
`
`Universal Grading Serv. v. eBay, Inc.,
`No. C-09-2755 RMW, 2012 WL 70644 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2012) aff’d sub nom.,
`563 F. A