Xerox Corp. v. Media Sciences Intern., Inc.
| Decision Date | 14 September 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 06 Civ. 4872(RJH).,06 Civ. 4872(RJH). |
| Citation | 511 F.Supp.2d 372 |
| Parties | XEROX CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. MEDIA SCIENCES INTERNATIONAL, INC. and Media Sciences, Inc., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
James Gerard McCarney, Howrey LLP, New York, NY, Jennifer L. Dzwonczyk, Jim W. Ko, Joseph P. Lavelle, Howrey Simon Arnold & White LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
Anthony P. La Rocco, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis, LLP, Newark, NJ, Hunter D. Keeton, James J. Foster, Lawrence M. Green, Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C., Boston, MA, William N. Hebert, William H. Hebert, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, Preston Gates Ellis LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants.
Defendants Media Sciences International, Inc. and Media Sciences, Inc. (collectively, "MS") bring antitrust counterclaims against plaintiff Xerox Corporation ("Xerox") under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2 (2006). MS alleges that Xerox monopolized or attempted to monopolize the market for replacement solid ink sticks for use in Xerox phase change color printers. Xerox moves to dismiss the antitrust counterclaims pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the reasons that follow, Xerox's motion is DENIED.
On June 23, 2006, Xerox filed a complaint against MS alleging that its manufacture, use, and sale of solid ink sticks for use in Xerox phase change color printers infringe multiple Xerox patents. On January 16, 2007, MS filed its Second Amended Answer, which contained (for the first time) a Fifth Counterclaim alleging an antitrust violation under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. On January 30, 2007, Xerox filed a motion to dismiss the Fifth Counterclaim, arguing, inter alia, that the allegations contained therein were conclusory. In its memorandum of law opposing Xerox's motion, MS sought leave to again amend its answer, attaching a proposed Third Amended Answer that it suggested more fully alleged antitrust violations. Xerox then filed a memorandum of law responding to MS's opposition, and opposing the motion to amend on the grounds that the amended counterclaims were subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) and thus amendment would be futile. Finally, MS filed a memorandum of law responding to these arguments.
The antitrust allegations, as set forth in the Fifth and Sixth Counterclaims of the proposed Third Amended Answer, are as follows: Xerox is the only seller of phase change color printers (also known as solid ink printers) in the United States. (Third Amended Answer ("TAA") ¶ 61.) It is also the primary supplier of replacement solid ink sticks for such printers, with a market share of over 90%. (TAA ¶¶ 62, 66.) MS is the only other significant supplier of replacement color ink sticks, in direct competition with Xerox, and has been experiencing increasing ink stick sales. (TAA ¶¶ 54, 67.) These color ink sticks and Xerox phase change color printers are only compatible with one another; thus, consumables from other types of printers cannot be used with phase change color printers and replacement color ink sticks can not be used in any other type of printer, such as a laserjet or inkjet. (TAA ¶ 62.) The price of MS's replacement solid ink sticks is affected only by price changes in the price of Xerox's solid ink sticks. It is not affected by price changes in the price of consumables for other types of printers, phase change color printers, or any other type of printers. (TAA ¶ 63, 64.)
MS further alleges that in order to acquire and maintain its monopoly power in the market for replacement solid ink sticks, Xerox engaged in the following anticompetitive behavior. First, it altered the feed channels in its new phase change color printer to prevent MS from selling its (non-infringing) replacement solid ink sticks to users of this printer. (TAA ¶ 69(a).) Second, it pursued and received patent protection for the changes to the feed channels and the corresponding changes to replacement solid ink sticks, precluding MS from modifying its replacement solid ink sticks to make them compatible with the new phase change color printer. (TAA ¶ 69(b).) During, prosecution of these patents and afterwards, Xerox modified all its other models of phase change color printers to utilize the new feed channels and discontinued (or intends to discontinue) those that do not, in order to have its patent cover the entire market of replacement solid ink sticks. (Id.) The only benefit to consumers of the feed channels and corresponding solid ink sticks — preventing the insertion of the wrong color of ink into the wrong channel — was already served by key plates in previous models of Xerox phase change color printers. (Id.) Third, Xerox disseminated false and disparaging statements about MS and has discouraged customers making service calls for their phase change color printers from using non-Xerox solid ink sticks. (TAA ¶ 69(c).) Finally, Xerox has offered loyalty rebates to those resellers, distributors, and wholesalers who agree not to sell MS's replacement solid ink sticks. (TAA ¶ 69(d).) As a result of this conduct, MS alleges that Xerox has monopolized and attempted to monopolize the market for replacement solid ink sticks.
In its opposition memorandum of law, MS moves to amend its answer. Fed. R.Civ.P. 15(a) provides: "a party may amend the party's pleading only by leave of court ... and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires." A Court should deny a motion to amend only for good reasons, such as "undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously, allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment." Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962). Xerox opposes the motion on the ground that the proposed amendments would be futile.1 "An amendment to a pleading is futile if the proposed claim could not withstand a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)." Lucente v. IBM Corp., 310 F.3d 243, 258 (2d Cir.2002). Accordingly, the Court will consider whether the Fifth and Sixth Counterclaims in the proposed Third Amended Answer are subject to dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court "must accept as true the factual allegations in the complaint, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff." Bolt Elec., Inc. v. City of New York, 53 F.3d 465, 469 (2d Cir.1995) (citations omitted). Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 8(a), the complaint must include "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2); see also Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957) (). The complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations," yet it "requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formalistic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Rather, the "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Id. at 1965; see also Iqbal v. Hasty, 490 F.3d 143, 157-58 (2d Cir.2007) ().
The Court is generally limited to "the factual allegations in [the] complaint, documents attached to the complaint as an exhibit or incorporated in it by reference, matters of which judicial notice may be taken, or documents either in plaintiff['s] possession or of which plaintiff[] had knowledge and relied in' bringing suit." Brass v. American Film Technologies, Inc., 987 F.2d 142, 150 (2d Cir.1993).
Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it unlawful to "monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States." 15 U.S.C. § 2. MS's Fifth and Sixth Counterclaims allege that Xerox violated the Sherman Act by monopolizing or attempting to monopolize the market for replacement solid ink sticks. According to Xerox, MS's antitrust counterclaims must be dismissed because they fail, as a matter of law, to allege: (1) a valid antitrust injury; (2) a valid relevant market; and (3) prohibited anticompetitive conduct. The Court will address these contentions seriatim.
Private plaintiffs seeking to enforce Section 2 of the Sherman Act must satisfy the standing requirement of Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act.2 See Sunshine Cellular v. Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc., 810 F.Supp. 486, 491 (S.D.N.Y.1992). This requires plaintiff to "prove antitrust injury," Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477, 489, 97 S.Ct. 690, 50 L.Ed.2d 701 (1977), and to prove it "is a proper party3 to bring a private antitrust action," Associated General Contractors v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 535 n. 31, 103 S.Ct. 897, 74 L.Ed.2d 723 (1983). Xerox argues that MS has not satisfied either requirement.
Antitrust injury is "injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which makes defendants' acts unlawful." Brunswick Corp., 429 U.S. at 489, 97 S.Ct. 690. "The antitrust injury requirement ensures that a plaintiff can recover only if the loss stems from a competition-reducing aspect or effect of the defendant's behavior." Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co., 495 U.S. 328, 343, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AngioDynamics, Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc.
...a competitor are insufficient unless accompanied by allegations of injury to competition as well." See Xerox Corp. v. Media Scis. Intern., Inc. , 511 F. Supp. 2d 372, 380 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) ; see also Capital Imaging Assocs., P.C. v. Mohawk Valley Med. Assocs., Inc. , 996 F.2d 537, 547 (2d Cir......
-
Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC
...from the digital distribution market entirely, given the record companies' dominant market share. See Xerox Corp. v. Media Sciences Int'l Inc., 511 F.Supp.2d 372, 381-82 (S.D.N.Y.2007) (noting that "threatened injury (of direct exclusion from the marketplace) is exactly the type that antitr......
-
Nirvana, Inc. v. Nestle Waters N. Am. Inc.
...standing alone, a violation of section 3 of the Clayton Act. See Tampa, 365 U.S. at 327, 81 S.Ct. 623 ; Xerox Corp. v. Media Scis. Int'l, Inc., 511 F.Supp.2d 372, 389 (S.D.N.Y.2007). To state a violation, the exclusive dealing agreement must foreclose competition in a substantial share of t......
-
Radiancy, Inc. v. Viatek Consumer Prods. Grp., Inc.
...Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act .... [which] requires plaintiff to ‘prove antitrust injury [.]’ " Xerox Corp. v. Media Sciences Int'l, Inc., 511 F.Supp.2d 372, 380 (S.D.N.Y.2007) (quoting Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl–O–Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477, 489, 97 S.Ct. 690, 50 L.Ed.2d 701 (1977)......
-
Table Of Cases
...X Xechem, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 372 F.3d 899 (7th Cir. 2004), 102. Table of Cases 249 Xerox Corp. v. Media Scis. Int’l, 511 F. Supp. 2d 372 (S.D.N.Y. 2007), 108, 109. Z z4 Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 434 F. Supp. 2d 437 (E.D. Tex. 2006), 64. Zenith Electric Corp. v. Exzec, ......
-
Specfic Forms of Monopolizing Conduct
...should be per se legal. 248 Another commentator, however, has criticized this approach 242. See Xerox Corp. v. Media Scis. Int’l, 511 F. Supp. 2d 372, 389–90 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (denying motion to dismiss where plaintiff challenged loyalty discount conditioned on no purchases from competitor); ......
-
Single-Firm Conduct
...GPUs after it induced third party GPU manufacturers to share their technology with Intel. Id. ; Xerox Corp. v. Media Scis. Int’l, 511 F. Supp. 2d 372, 387 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (denying Xerox’s motion to dismiss a rival ink producer’s complaint that it purposefully redesigned all of its phase 314......
-
Table of Cases
...Koninklijke Philips Elecs., 2006 WL 6667002 (S.D. Cal. 2006), 49, 50, 97-98, 99, 100-01 X Xerox Corp. v. Media Sciences International, 511 F. Supp. 2d 372 (S.D.N.Y. 2007), 313 Z Zenith Elecs. v. Sceptre, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33661 (C.D. Cal. 2015), 101 Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine......