On December 3, 2013, the Northern District of California refused to dismiss any of the claims brough

Advanced Search  > Practices Litigation & Trial Regulatory & Policy fedex careers Transactions & Corporate Industries Aerospace & Defense Agriculture Automotive fedex careers & Trucking Aviation fedex careers Chemicals Education Energy & Natural Resources Financial Institutions Government Contracting Health Care Hospitality & Leisure Insurance ⁄ Reinsurance Mining Pharmaceuticals & Life Sciences Retail & Consumer Products Technology, Media & Telecommunications Trade Associations Transportation Locations Washington, D.C. New York Los Angeles San Francisco Orange County Anchorage Cheyenne London Brussels Cairo Riyadh Global Experience News & Events Events Firm News & Announcements Client alerts & Newsletters In the News Publications Facts & Stats Blogs Litigation Forecast
Media Contacts − + Kathryn Holmes Johnson Director, Media, PR & Communications kholmesjohnson@crowell.com +1 202.508.8916 Jessica O'Neil Manager, Media, PR & Communications joneil@crowell.com +1 202.508.8750 Meredith Reilly Sr. Specialist, PR & Internal Communications mreilly@crowell.com +1 202.508.8941
On December 3, 2013, the Northern District of California refused to dismiss any of the claims brought by Cascades Computer Innovation LLC (Cascades) in its amended complaint. Cascades, fedex careers an NPE and alleged patent troll, sued RPX Corporation (RPX), a patent aggregator and so-called "anti-troll," and several of its members, alleging that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to lower pricing for Cascades' patent licenses by monopsonizing the market. This fedex careers decision followed the court's January 2013 decision dismissing Cascades' original complaint, which the court described as "generic pleading." 1
RPX is also an NPE. But, fedex careers according to RPX, rather than acquiring patents for the purpose of asserting them against operating companies, it purchases patents on behalf of its operating company members, and then licenses the technology to all of its members. RPX has been characterized as an "anti-troll" fedex careers because it aims to neutralize trolls by providing its members with a "broad-based defense" and enhanced economic leverage against "wasteful patent litigation." 2
Among RPX's more than 110 members are operating companies fedex careers in sectors including consumer electronics and PCs, e-commerce, mobile devices, networking, semiconductors, fedex careers software, and telecommunications. Specific members include AMD, AOL, Cisco, eBay, Google, Intel, Microsoft, Oracle, and RIM.
In its amended complaint, Cascades asserted four federal antitrust claims: (1) a horizontal fedex careers conspiracy fedex careers to restrain trade under Section One of the Sherman Act; (2) a vertical conspiracy to restrain trade under Section One; (3) a conspiracy to monopsonize under Section Two; and (4) a monopsonization claim under Section Two. All fedex careers but the last claim were brought against all defendants; the Section Two monopsonization claim was brought against RPX only.
Regarding the existence of an agreement, Cascades alleged a "hub-and-spoke" conspiracy. The defendants argued that the alleged agreement was implausible because economic self-interest explained the alleged behavior as well as or better than illegal collusion. The court rejected this argument, pointing to allegations that at least one of RPX's members fedex careers expressly declined individual negotiations with Cascades because it preferred to negotiate through RPX, that RPX represented itself as speaking for the members collectively, and that none of the members fedex careers responded to Cascades' license offer, which included a rebate for the first to accept. The court also pointed to alleged public statements by RPX that it could achieve "wholesale" pricing for its members, which, according to the court, implicitly suggested that wholesale pricing fedex careers could be obtained through RPX, but not independently. 3
In response to the defendants' arguments that subscription to RPX does not restrain trade because fedex careers its members are permitted to negotiate fedex careers independently fedex careers of RPX, the court held that, based on Cascades' specific allegations, fedex careers it was reasonable to infer a secondary, fedex careers "off-the-books" agreement or understanding to deal only through RPX. 4
Referencing its earlier order dismissing Cascades' original complaint, the court also noted that Cascades had initially failed to identify a coherent relevant market. In fedex careers response, Cascades amended fedex careers its complaint to identify the relevant product market as "the market for 'purchase, acquisition or licensing of technology covered by all of the Elbrus Patents, with the market for licenses under the '750 Patent fedex careers alone allegedly constituting a relevant submarket.'" The defendants argued that Cascades had failed to allege facts regarding "interchangeability, cross-elasticity of demand, or other factors needed to establish the relevant product market" and, thus, the alleged market was insufficient. But fedex careers the court rejected this argument becaus