129 F. Supp. 3d 1012
D. Or.2015Background
- Vesta (Oregon corp.) develops prepaid mobile payment-processing and fraud-prevention technology; Amdocs (defendants) provide billing platforms and began collaborating with Vesta on joint bids and NDAs from 2006–2012.
- Vesta alleges Amdocs obtained confidential technical and risk information under NDAs and used it to build a "copycat" payment solution sold to MetroPCS and others; Amdocs developed its solution primarily in Seattle and Pune, India; many meetings and pitches occurred in Richardson, Texas.
- Vesta amended to add three antitrust claims: attempted monopolization, monopolization, and monopoly leveraging in the prepaid mobile payment-processing market; earlier trade-secret and breach claims remained pending.
- Amdocs moved to dismiss the antitrust claims and to transfer venue to the Northern District of Texas; Amdocs also submitted several public documents for judicial notice.
- The court took judicial notice of some public records (SEC filings, Vesta website, MetroPCS–T‑Mobile merger) but declined to accept extrinsic web-articles for their truth when they contradicted complaint inferences.
- The court found Vesta adequately alleged a relevant market and market power but dismissed all antitrust claims for failing to plead anticompetitive conduct and antitrust injury; it denied transfer of venue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of market-definition and market power for §2 claims | Vesta: defines a U.S. prepaid mobile phone payment-processing market excluding MNOs that self-supply; alleges Amdocs controls ~64–67% | Amdocs: market should be global and include self-supplying MNOs, reducing Amdocs’ share below thresholds | Court: Vesta’s market-definition and market-power allegations survive Rule 12(b)(6) at this stage (fact-intensive) |
| Alleged predatory pricing as anticompetitive conduct | Vesta: Amdocs bid prices (to MetroPCS/T‑Mobile/Sprint) were below Amdocs’ average variable cost and intended to exclude Vesta | Amdocs: Vesta’s cost-based inferences are speculative; Amdocs has different cost structure and no factual showing of below-cost pricing | Court: Dismissed predatory-pricing claim — Vesta failed to plausibly allege below-cost pricing or basis to measure Amdocs’ costs |
| Bundled discounts / bundled pricing theory | Vesta: Amdocs bundled billing platform with payment processing and allocated discounts to payment services to exclude Vesta | Amdocs: No factual showing of discount allocation below cost; for MetroPCS there was no bundling allegation because Amdocs already sold billing platform | Court: Dismissed bundled-discounts theory for lack of factual cost allocation and, where applicable, lack of bundling |
| Motion to transfer venue to N.D. Texas under §1404(a) | Amdocs: Texas is more convenient for witnesses/evidence (many meetings and MNO contacts in Texas) | Vesta: HQ, most employees, documents, and trade secrets are in Oregon; plaintiff’s forum choice entitled to deference | Court: Denied transfer — balance of convenience and interest of justice favors Oregon given plaintiff’s choice and case connections |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must contain factual content to state plausible claim)
- Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209 (predatory pricing requires below-cost pricing and dangerous probability of recoupment)
- Rebel Oil Co. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 51 F.3d 1421 (antitrust injury and circumstantial market-power proof)
- Image Tech. Servs., Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 125 F.3d 1195 (differences between monopolization and attempted monopolization)
- Newcal Indus., Inc. v. Ikon Office Sol., 513 F.3d 1038 (market-definition pleading not required to be highly detailed at pleading stage)
- Cascade Health Solutions v. PeaceHealth, 515 F.3d 883 (standard for exclusionary bundled discounts under §2)
- Saint Alphonsus Med. Ctr.-Nampa Inc. v. St. Luke’s Health Sys., 778 F.3d 775 (use of hypothetical monopolist test and geographic market analysis)
- Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495 (factors for §1404(a) transfer analysis)
- Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730 (deference to plaintiff’s forum choice and transfer considerations)