Dodge Data & Analytics LLC v. iSqFt, Inc.
183 F.Supp.3d 855
S.D. Ohio2016Background
- Dodge Data provides nationwide Construction Project Information (CPI) by subscription and competes with iSqFt, CMD, CDC, and BidClerk (collectively Defendants).
- Dodge Data alleges Defendants engaged in a coordinated scheme: predatory below‑cost pricing (sometimes >85% below Dodge’s prices), use of stolen Dodge customer data, trademark infringement, restrictive covenants, and consolidation through acquisitions to exclude Dodge from the market.
- Plaintiff alleges injury to competition in the relevant U.S./Canada CPI market (lost customers, price erosion, reduced innovation) and asserts federal antitrust claims (attempted monopolization, conspiracy under §§1–2 Sherman Act) plus trademark and Ohio state tort claims (tortious interference, trespass to chattels, declaratory relief on covenants).
- Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state claims and lack of antitrust standing, arguing Dodge pleads only vigorous competition, unilateral conduct, and mischaracterizes trademarks and market effects.
- The court applied Rule 12(b)(6) standards and the Sixth Circuit’s antitrust‑standing test, construed the amended complaint in Dodge’s favor, and denied the motion to dismiss in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Antitrust standing | Dodge alleges antitrust injury from predatory pricing and market‑wide harm (loss of customers, price erosion, reduced innovation) | Defendants say Dodge alleges only competitive harm to a rival, not market injury | Court: Dodge pleaded antitrust injury and standing—predatory pricing can injure competition and competitors before market exclusion occurs |
| Attempted monopolization (predatory pricing) | Defendants priced below appropriate cost measures, directed sales to convert Dodge customers, and sought to eliminate Dodge to recoup monopoly profits | Defendants characterize conduct as aggressive but lawful competition and dispute cost allegations and market power | Court: Complaint plausibly alleges specific intent, anticompetitive conduct (below‑cost pricing, use of stolen data, other acts), and a dangerous probability of success (≈50% market share, high barriers to entry); claim survives dismissal |
| Conspiracy (§1 and §2) | Dodge alleges multilateral conspiracy among iSqFt, CMD, CDC, BidClerk to jointly exclude Dodge via coordinated pricing, data use, trademarks and acquisitions | Defendants argue alleged conduct is unilateral or intra‑company and that common ownership precludes conspiracy | Court: Allegations sufficiently plead a conspiracy; pre/post‑merger status and integration are factual issues inappropriate for dismissal |
| Trademark and related state claims | Dodge alleges likelihood of confusion from Sweets and BidPro marks and pleads tortious interference, trespass to chattels, and seeks declaratory relief on restrictive covenants | Defendants argue marks/products differ, lack of confusion, and that tort/state claims fail for insufficient factual specificity | Court: Trademark claims meet low pleading threshold; tortious interference, trespass to chattels, and declaratory judgment claims sufficiently pleaded to proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Tackett v. M&G Polymers, 561 F.3d 478 (6th Cir.) (pleading standard: view facts in plaintiff’s favor)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plaintiff must plead factual content plausibly supporting entitlement to relief)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for antitrust conspiracies)
- Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209 (1993) (predatory pricing requires below‑cost pricing and dangerous probability of recoupment)
- Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl‑O‑Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477 (1977) (predatory pricing can give rise to antitrust injury before competitor exit)
- Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc., 479 U.S. 104 (1986) (predatory pricing harms competitors and competition)
- NicSand, Inc. v. 3M Co., 507 F.3d 442 (6th Cir.) (antitrust‑standing is a stringent, five‑factor pleading inquiry)
- Spirit Airlines, Inc. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 431 F.3d 917 (6th Cir.) (cost‑based predatory pricing analysis and burden shifting)
- Collins Inkjet Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 781 F.3d 264 (6th Cir.) (competitors may plead cost‑based predatory pricing without precise defendant cost data)
- Copperweld Corp. v. Indep. Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752 (1984) (limitations on intra‑enterprise §1 liability where conspiratorial acquisition purpose is at issue)
- Hensley Mfg. v. ProPride, Inc., 579 F.3d 603 (6th Cir.) (likelihood of confusion is generally a fact question in trademark cases)
- Daddy’s Junky Music Stores, Inc. v. Big Daddy’s Family Music Ctr., 109 F.3d 275 (6th Cir.) (actual confusion is strong evidence of likelihood of confusion)