Puerto Rico Tele. Co., Inc. v. San Juan Cable LLC
874 F.3d 767
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- PRTC sought TRB approval to offer IPTV in Puerto Rico; incumbent OneLink (San Juan Cable) repeatedly petitioned government bodies to block or delay PRTC.
- OneLink pursued a series of filings and communications across administrative, Commonwealth, and federal tribunals; PRTC characterizes these as 24 petitions, none of which produced a meaningful victory.
- PRTC sued under the Sherman Act and the Puerto Rico Anti‑Monopoly Act, alleging unlawful monopolization and attempted monopolization via OneLink’s petitioning activity.
- The district court granted summary judgment for OneLink, finding Noerr‑Pennington immunity applied because each petition was objectively reasonable and thus not a "sham." PRTC appealed.
- On appeal the First Circuit accepted the district court’s factual finding (waived by PRTC) that all petitions were objectively reasonable and affirmed summary judgment, holding the sham exception did not apply on these facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OneLink’s petitioning falls outside Noerr‑Pennington immunity under the "sham" exception | OneLink’s serial, obstructive petitions (24) amounted to an abuse of the petitioning process and should be treated as a sham even if individual filings had some merit | OneLink’s filings were objectively reasonable; PREI bars treating non‑baseless petitions as shams merely because they were numerous or intended to delay | Affirmed for OneLink: because PRTC waived challenging objective reasonableness, and under PREI an objectively reasonable petition cannot be a sham; serial nonfrivolous petitions did not establish sham liability here |
| Whether PREI’s “objectively baseless” test applies to serial‑petition cases | PREI should be limited to single‑petition contexts; serial filings can be evaluated holistically and might constitute a sham even if each filing is non‑baseless | PREI’s protection for objectively reasonable litigation should extend to multiple filings; seriality alone does not strip immunity absent baselessness or other misconduct | Court skeptical of carving out a categorical exception for serial non‑baseless filings; did not adopt a rule that PREI never applies to pattern cases and left open future narrow pattern‑based claims, but affirmed summary judgment on these facts |
| Whether California Motor Transport permits liability for a pattern of petitions without baseless individual suits | PRTC invoked California Motor to argue liability can attach for a pattern of petitions used "with or without probable cause" to block entry | OneLink stressed California Motor involves different facts (threats, a financing trust, explicit policy to oppose regardless of merits) and does not compel liability here | California Motor remains relevant to misconduct (fraud, bribery, threats) but does not require finding liability where all petitions are objectively reasonable; here no such evidence supported a sham claim |
| Whether First Amendment petition rights are outweighed by antitrust concerns when a monopolist uses litigation tactically to raise rival’s costs | PRTC argued serial suits were used to impose costs and thwart PRTC’s ability to obtain a license | OneLink contended First Amendment‑protected petitioning cannot be converted into antitrust liability without objective baselessness or clear misuse of process | Court balanced interests and declined to permit suit on these facts; concurrence emphasized reservation for future pattern cases where evidence shows use of process solely to deprive rival of its petitioning rights |
Key Cases Cited
- E.R.R. Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, 365 U.S. 127 (1961) (establishes Noerr‑Pennington petitioning immunity)
- United Mine Workers of Am. v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 (1965) (applies Noerr immunity principles in antitrust context)
- Cal. Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (1972) (recognizes sham exception where petitioning used to block entry; discusses threats and organized campaigns to oppose regardless of merits)
- Prof'l Real Estate Inv’rs, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc., 508 U.S. 49 (1993) (holds a suit is a sham only if objectively baseless; an objectively reasonable effort cannot be a sham)
- City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc., 499 U.S. 365 (1991) (clarifies limits on sham claims and the need to show use of governmental process as an anticompetitive weapon)
- Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1 (1945) (First Amendment protections do not shield combinations that exclude competitors)