Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—N.D. Tex.: Truck body maker’s conspiracy, monopoly claims discarded, (Sep 28, 2015)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

Allegations that a truck fiberglass utility bodies (FUBs) manufacturer conspired to restrain trade and monopolized or attempted to monopolize the FUB product market in the United States were dismissed by the federal district court in Fort Worth, Texas. The court determined that the antitrust claims were barred by the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine and the plaintiff manufacturer failed to plead sufficient facts to show concerted action (Industrial Models, Inc. v. SNF, Inc., September 23, 2015, McBryde, J.).

After plaintiff Industrial Models, Inc. entered the market for FUBs for trucks in January 2012, defendant SNF, Inc. allegedly contacted Industrial, expressing interest in purchasing its truck body molds. When Industrial did not agree to sell, SNF filed suit against Industrial, alleging infringement of trade dress rights, patent rights, and copyrights. However, SNF filed a notice of non-suit in August 2014. Industrial eventually filed its own complaint in the federal district court in Dallas, alleging that SNF, BrandFX Holdings, LLC, and BrandFX, LLC engaged in concerted action in restraint of trade, and monopolized and/or attempted to monopolize the U.S. product market for FUBs. The case was transferred to the federal district court in Fort Worth, where SNF and BrandFX moved to dismiss.

Noerr-Pennington. The court first concluded that the antitrust claims were barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. Specifically, the court concluded that the sham exception did not apply in this case, because the copyright, patent, and trade dress infringement claims were not objectively baseless. Industrial’s own actions—in refraining from using the molds despite its contention that they were non-infringing—demonstrated that Industrial believed the cease and desist letters and infringement lawsuit to have a legitimate basis. Nevertheless, Industrial’s claims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement of purported BrandFX copyrights, trade dress and patent rights were not dismissed, as Industrial identified a justiciable controversy in those claims, the court concluded.

Concerted action. The court dismissed the antitrust claims on the alternate ground that Industrial failed to sufficiently plead facts demonstrating concerted action. The key to concerted action, according to the court, is “separate economic actors pursuing separate economic interests, such that the agreement deprives the marketplace of independent centers of decision making.” However, Industrial contended that SNF acted on behalf of all defendants. The complaint consequently made clear that the defendants did not compete with each other and did not engage in concerted action.

The case number is 4:15-cv-00689-A.

Attorneys: Peter Nesbitt Jansson (Jansson Munger Mckinley & Shape Ltd.) for Industrial Models, Inc. Brian Keith Garrett (Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP) for SNF Inc., BrandFX Holdings LLC, and BrandFX LLC.

Companies: Industrial Models, Inc.; SNF Inc.; BrandFX Holdings LLC; BrandFX LLC

Cases: Antitrust TexasNews