Isaacs v. Google LLC, 9:24-cv-80395

Greenflight Venture Corporation, a web development company offering reverse phone number lookup services, sued Google LLC.
The claims were centered on Google’s alleged monopolistic practices in the general search engine market and patent infringement related to reverse phone number lookup services.
Greenflight alleged harm due to reduced web traffic and claimed both direct and indirect antitrust injury, as well as indirect patent infringement.
Previous motions to dismiss had resulted in the removal of claims brought by pro se plaintiff and Greenflight owner, Jeff Isaacs; the present order addresses Greenflight’s amended allegations, now represented by counsel.
The defendant, Google, moved to dismiss all claims for failure to allege standing, plausible market definitions, and sufficient facts for direct/indirect infringement.
The Court dismissed all federal claims but reserved decision on jurisdiction over remaining state law claims, pending further briefing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sherman Act §2 (Monopolization)	Greenflight is inextricably linked to the general search market and is harmed by Google’s alleged monopoly.	Greenflight is not a market participant in general search services; lacks standing.	Dismissed for lack of standing; not a market participant and not directly harmed.
Sherman Act §1 (Unreasonable Restraint)	Google’s agreements (e.g., with Apple) and conduct in search result rankings restrain trade; relies on other jurisdictions’ findings.	No plausible factual allegations of agreements affecting plaintiff directly; citing other cases and unrelated facts is insufficient.	Dismissed; no sufficient factual allegations, and reliance on dicta/incorporation by reference from other cases is improper.
Sherman Act §2 (Refusal to Deal)	Google’s demotion of plaintiff’s results is akin to unlawful ‘refusal to deal’ (Aspen Skiing doctrine).	No prior joint venture, not a refusal to deal; plaintiff still listed in Google search results.	Dismissed; facts too remote from Aspen Skiing; no plausible refusal to deal.
Indirect Patent Infringement	Google indirectly infringes by supporting apps that infringe Greenflight’s patent; discovery needed to identify infringing products.	No specific product or third party identified as infringer; no sufficient factual basis to proceed.	Dismissed; failure to plausibly allege an infringing product or factually support indirect infringement.

Blue Shield of Virginia v. McCready, 457 U.S. 465 (Standing for injuries ‘inextricably intertwined’ with anticompetitive conduct)
Fla. Seed Co., Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 105 F.3d 1372 (Plaintiff must be market participant for antitrust standing)
Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447 (Elements required for attempted monopolization)
Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 (Antitrust ‘refusal to deal’ doctrine)
Feldman v. American Dawn, Inc., 849 F.3d 1333 (Effect on non-market participants does not equate to antitrust standing)
Levine v. Cent. Fla. Med. Affiliates, Inc., 72 F.3d 1538 (Requirement for an agreement in unreasonable restraint claims)
Duty Free Americas v. Estee Lauder Cos., Inc., 797 F.3d 1248 (Antitrust pleading standards for market power)
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC, 879 F.3d 1320 (Elements for pleading indirect patent infringement)