Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01839/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01839-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELANTECH DEVICES CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 SYNAPTICS, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

and related counterclaims

___________________________________/

No. C 06-01839 CRB

ORDER

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

GRANTED. As currently pled, Elantech’s state claims are preempted by the federal patent

law, see Zenith Electronics Corp. v. Exzec, Inc., 182 F.3d 1340, 1353-55 (Fed. Cir. 1999),

fall within the California litigation privilege, Sharper Image v. Target Corp., 425 F.Supp.2d

1056, 1077-78 (N.D. Cal. 2006), and fail to sufficiently identify that business relationships

that it alleges Synaptics interfered with. The question, then, is whether the claims should be

dismissed with leave to amend.

Normally, leave to amend should be freely granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Here,

however, Elantech’s claims are premature. Elantech cannot plead around preemption and 

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 28 Filed 07/07/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\CRBALL\2006\1839\orderrecounterclaims.wpd 2

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.

Dated: July 7, 2006 

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 28 Filed 07/07/06 Page 2 of 2