826 F. Supp. 2d 705
S.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Eatoni amended its complaint to pursue Sherman Act §2 and Donnelly Act claims against RIM.
- Eatoni holds a patent on a reduced QWERTY keyboard and related software (the '317 patent).
- In 2005, RIM sought and obtained a settlement and license to Eatoni's '317 patent, with a broad release of claims.
- From 2005 to 2010, disputes led to arbitration; an arbitrator denied Eatoni's contract and fraud claims and directed continued joint development if possible.
- In 2011, Eatoni amended to allege only antitrust claims; the court confirmed the 2010 award and stayed/arbitration-related matters accordingly.
- The court granted RIM's motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice, finding no antitrust violation supported by the pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patent infringement as antitrust conduct | Eatoni alleges infringement is anticompetitive. | Infringement claims were released in 2005 settlement; cannot be basis for §2 claim. | Dismissed; release bars antitrust claim arising from infringement. |
| Unlawful refusal to deal | RIM's post-settlement refusal to cooperate constitutes anticompetitive exclusion. | Unilateral refusals to deal are generally lawful; Aspen Skiing narrow exception not met. | Dismissed; no anticompetitive refusal to deal under the facts. |
| Course of conduct | Aggregate actions form a single anticompetitive course of conduct. | Each act must be independently anticompetitive; course of conduct not established. | Dismissed; aggregate conduct fails to show antitrust violation. |
| Essential facility | RIM deprived Eatoni of access to Blackberry platform as an essential facility. | Patent rights and lack of essentiality bar obligation to provide access. | Dismissed; platform not essential and patent owner not compelled to surrender exclusionary rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- Verizon Communications v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398 (U.S. 2004) (monopoly power requires anticompetitive conduct)
- United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1966) (monopoly power and willful maintenance elements)
- Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 (U.S. 1985) (cooperative venture as exception to refusal to deal)
- In re Elevator Antitrust Litig., 502 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 2007) (unilateral refusals to deal generally lawful)
- Continental Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., 370 U.S. 690 (U.S. 1962) (course-of-conduct analysis for conspiracies; not support for unlawful aggregate acts)
- SCM Corp. v. Xerox Corp., 645 F.2d 1195 (2d Cir. 1981) (essential facility doctrine limitations)
- Trinko, 540 U.S. 398 (U.S. 2004) (limits on antitrust duties to deal)
- Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (course-of-conduct doctrine considerations)