Free Order on Motion to Dismiss - District Court of California - California

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT

Document 28

Filed 07/07/2006

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11 12
For the Northern District of California

ELANTECH DEVICES CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. SYNAPTICS, INC., Defendant. /

No. C 06-01839 CRB ORDER

13 14 15 16 17 18

and related counterclaims ___________________________________/ Now pending before the Court is Synaptics, Inc.'s motion to dismiss Elantech's counterclaims. After carefully considering the parties' papers, Elantech's motion is

19 20 GRANTED. As currently pled, Elantech's state claims are preempted by the federal patent 21 law, see Zenith Electronics Corp. v. Exzec, Inc., 182 F.3d 1340, 1353-55 (Fed. Cir. 1999), 22 fall within the California litigation privilege, Sharper Image v. Target Corp., 425 F.Supp.2d 23 1056, 1077-78 (N.D. Cal. 2006), and fail to sufficiently identify that business relationships 24 that it alleges Synaptics interfered with. The question, then, is whether the claims should be 25 dismissed with leave to amend. 26 Normally, leave to amend should be freely granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Here, 27 however, Elantech's claims are premature. Elantech cannot plead around preemption and 28

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT

Document 28

Filed 07/07/2006

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

allege that Synaptics' infringement allegations were "objectively baseless" until Synaptics' infringement claims are resolved. See Visto Corp. v. Sproqit Tech. Inc., 360 F.Supp.2d 1064, 1072 (N.D. Cal. 2005). Elantech's assertion that its counterclaims are not based on Synaptics' infringement allegations is disproved by the language of Elantech's counterclaims: "Synaptics has been sending Elantech's customers letters containing, and visiting Elantech's customers providing, false and misleading information about Elantech's alleged infringement of Synaptics' patents. Counterclaims at ¶ 10 (emphasis added). Accordingly, Elantech's state law counterclaims are dismissed with leave to amend; however, Elantech's amendment of the claims is stayed until the adjudication of Synaptics' patent infringement claims. IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court

11 12
For the Northern District of California

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dated: July 7, 2006

CHARLES R. BREYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\CRBALL\2006\1839\orderrecounterclaims.wpd

2