Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03010/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03010-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

United States District Court

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OPTOVUE CORPORATION, a California

Corporation,

Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant,

v.

CARL ZEISS MEDITEC, INC., a New York

Corporation,

Defendant and Counterclaimant.

 /

No. C 07-3010 CW

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT'S MOTION

TO DISMISS AND

MOTION FOR A MORE

DEFINITE STATEMENT

Defendant Carl Zeiss Meditec (CZM) moves to dismiss the sixth

and third claims and for a more definite statement as to the fourth

claim of Plaintiff Optovue Corp.'s complaint. Optovue opposes the

motion. Having considered all of the papers filed by the parties

and the evidence cited therein, the Court grants CZM's motions. 

BACKGROUND

According to the complaint, Optovue is an opthalmic device

company that develops and commercializes new imaging technologies

for the diagnosis and treatment of eye diseases. It is a new

Case 4:07-cv-03010-CW Document 29 Filed 08/20/07 Page 1 of 10
United States District Court

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 2

company that began selling its product in November, 2006. CZM is

an established company specializing in opthalmic diagnosis. On

June 7, 2007, CZM filed a suit in Massachusetts state court against

William Shields, one of its former employees who left the company

to accept a position with Optovue. Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc. v.

Shields, Massachusetts Superior Court, Suffolk County, Civil Action

No. 07-2453. The Massachusetts suit alleges that Shields breached

his employment agreement with CZM by failing to return all

confidential information when he departed the company and by

disclosing confidential information to Optovue. Therefore, CZM

seeks injunctive relief preventing Shields from continuing his

employment with Optovue.

On June 11, 2007, Optovue filed this suit, seeking declaratory

relief stating that, among other things, it may continue to employ

William Shields (Sixth Claim for Relief); it has not engaged in

unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practices within the

meaning of California Business and Professions Code § 17200 (Fourth

Claim for Relief); and it has not infringed any of CZM's

protectable copyrights (Third Claim for Relief). 

At the same time CZM filed the motions addressed in this

order, it filed an answer, counterclaims against Optovue and thirdparty claims against Jay Wei and Yonghua Zhao, former employees of

CZM who left the company to found Optovue. CZM alleges that Wei

and Zhou are currently Optovue's chief executive officer and chief

technology officer. CZM brings claims for computer fraud and abuse

and unfair competition under the Lanham Act against Optovue. CZM

also brings claims for trade secret misappropriation, violation of

Case 4:07-cv-03010-CW Document 29 Filed 08/20/07 Page 2 of 10
United States District Court

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 3

California Business and Professions Code § 17200 and unjust

enrichment against Optovue, Wei and Zhou and for breach of contract

against Wei and Zhou. 

DISCUSSION

I. Sixth Claim for Relief

Optovue's sixth claim states that CZM's "attempt to preclude

Mr. Shields from working for Optovue is improper and seeks to

deprive Optovue of its right to free access to a national pool of

potential employees." Complaint ¶ 65. Optovue asserts that a

justiciable controversy currently exists between the parties

regarding Optovue's "and its employees' (and prospective

employees') rights to be free from trade restraints." Id. at ¶ 66. 

Therefore, Optovue seeks a declaration "that it has the right to

continue [to] employ Mr. Shields." Id. at ¶ 67. 

To the extent the claim purports to relate only to Optovue's

continuing ability to employ Shields, CZM argues that the Court

should decline to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction over this

claim for declaratory relief because it is substantially similar to

the issues in the Massachusetts suit. CZM argues that Brillhart v.

Excess Insurance Company of America, 316 U.S. 491 (1942), controls. 

In Brillhart, the Supreme Court held that "it would be uneconomical

as well as vexatious for a federal court to proceed in a

declaratory judgment suit where another suit is pending in a state

court presenting the same issues, not governed by federal law,

between the same parties." Id. at 495. 

Optovue counters that Brillhart is inapplicable because

neither the parties nor the issues are identical in the two suits,

Case 4:07-cv-03010-CW Document 29 Filed 08/20/07 Page 3 of 10
United States District Court

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 4

noting that the Massachusetts suit has been filed against Shields

himself and will only resolve the question of whether he can

continue to be employed by Optovue. In contrast, Optovue

characterizes its claim as concerning "its rights, as a 

California employer, to be free to hire from a national talent pool

under California Business and Professions Code § 16600." 

Opposition at 6. However, as noted above, the complaint seeks a

declaration regarding only Optovue's ability to continue to employ

Shields, the exact issue to be determined in the Massachusetts

action. 

In Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Dizol, 133 F.3d 1220

(9th Cir. 1998), the Ninth Circuit held, "The district court should

avoid needless determination of state law issues; it should

discourage litigants from filing declaratory actions as a means of

forum shopping; and it should avoid duplicative litigation." 

Id. at 1225. Other concerns include: 

whether the declaratory action will settle all aspects

of the controversy; whether the declaratory action will

serve a useful purpose in clarifying the legal relations

at issue; whether the declaratory action is being sought

merely for the purposes of procedural fencing or to

obtain a 'res judicata' advantage; or whether the use of

a declaratory action will result in entanglement between

the federal and state court systems. In addition, the

district court might also consider the convenience of

the parties, and the availability and relative

convenience of other remedies.

Id. 1225 n.5, quoting American States Ins. Co. v. Kearns, 15 F.3d

142, 145 (9th Cir. 1994) (J. Garth, concurring). To the extent

Optovue seeks a declaration of its right to continue to employ

Shields, these factors weigh in favor of declining jurisdiction

over Optovue's sixth claim for relief. Although the parties are

Case 4:07-cv-03010-CW Document 29 Filed 08/20/07 Page 4 of 10
United States District Court

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 5

not identical in the two actions, the same issues will be decided. 

Presumably CZM could move to join or intervene in the Massachusetts

case.

Further, to the extent Optovue seeks a declaration of its

rights with respect to a national pool of employees, the Court

finds that it is seeking an advisory opinion. Optovue has not

demonstrated that there is any justiciable question regarding its

rights to do so. As CZM notes, the Massachusetts suit against

Shields is based on his failure to return confidential information

when terminating his employment with CZM and sharing confidential

information with Optovue in breach of his termination agreement

with CZM. Similarly, CZM's counterclaims against Wei and Zhou are

based on specific acts they took after terminating their employment

with CZM and CZM does not seek to prohibit their employment with

Optovue. Therefore, there is no current question of whether CZM is

seeking to prevent Optovue from hiring from a national pool of

employees. Optovue may amend its sixth claim to seek a declaration

of its rights to hire only persons with respect to whom it can

truthfully state, within the constraints of Rule 11 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, it reasonably fears being sued for

hiring. 

II. Motion for a More Definite Statement of the Fourth Claim

"[T]he proper test in evaluating a motion under Rule 12(e) is

whether the complaint provides the defendant with a sufficient

basis to frame his responsive pleadings." Federal Sav. and Loan

Ins. Corp. v. Musacchio, 695 F. Supp. 1053, 1060 (N.D. Cal. 1988)

(citing Famolare Inc. v. Edison Bros. Stores, Inc., 525 F. Supp.

Case 4:07-cv-03010-CW Document 29 Filed 08/20/07 Page 5 of 10
United States District Court

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 6

940, 949 (E.D. Cal. 1981)). 

"Motions for a more definite statement are viewed with

disfavor and are rarely granted because of the minimal pleading

requirements of the Federal Rules." Sagan v. Apple Computer, Inc.,

874 F. Supp. 1072, 1077 (1994). "Rule 12(e) is designed to correct

only unintelligibility in a pleading not merely a claimed lack of

detail." FRA S.p.A. v. Surg-O-Flex of America, Inc., 415 F. Supp.

421, 427 (S.D.N.Y. 1976). The proper tool for eliciting additional

detail is discovery, not a Rule 12(e) motion. Musacchio, 695 F.

Supp at 1060 (citing Kuenzell v. United States, 20 F.R.D. 96, 98

(N.D. Cal. 1957)).

A Rule 12(e) motion may be granted, however, "where the

complaint is so general that ambiguity arises in determining the

nature of the claim or the parties against whom it is being made." 

Sagan, 874 F. Supp. at 1077. 

CZM moves for a more definite statement of Optovue's fourth

claim, which seeks a declaration "that it has not engaged in any

unlawful, unfair and/or fraudulent business practices under

California Business and Professions Code § 17200." Complaint ¶ 57.

Optovue asserts that CZM has alleged that Optovue has done so "by

interfering with CZM's contractual relations with third parties." 

Id. ¶ 54. CZM argues that Optovue must identify the contractual

relationships with which it believes CZM has accused it of

interfering. However, the more appropriate question is on which of

CZM's allegations does Optovue seek declaratory relief. 

Although CZM should be aware of any allegations of interference CZM

has made, it is not clear if Optovue seeks a declaration of every

Case 4:07-cv-03010-CW Document 29 Filed 08/20/07 Page 6 of 10
United States District Court

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 7

allegation CZM has made or only particular allegations. The only

third party contractual relationship mentioned in the attachments

to the complaints concerns CZM's relationship with a Dr. David

Huang. 

Further, as currently stated, Optovue seeks a declaration that

it has not engaged in any unfair competition as defined by

California Business and Professions Code § 17200 that CZM might

have alleged. In the correspondence attached to the complaints,

CZM states various other concerns which could be considered

allegations of violations of § 17200. 

The Court grants CZM's motion for a more definite statement. 

Optovue shall amend its complaint to indicate for which allegations

it seeks a declaration of its rights.

III. Motion to Dismiss the Third Claim for Relief

Optovue's third claim notes that CZM has alleged that Optovue

"has infringed CZM's copyrights by distributing certain marketing

material entitled 'Interpretive Key.'" Complaint ¶ 49. Therefore,

Optovue seeks a declaration "that it has not infringed any valid

CZM copyrights." Id. at ¶ 52. CZM moves to dismiss the claim,

arguing that it has not registered any of the material in the

Interpretive Key. Therefore, CZM argues that the Court lacks

subject matter jurisdiction over the claim because the Copyright

Act of 1976 provides that "no action for infringement of the

copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until

preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been

made in accordance with this title." 17 U.S.C. § 411(a); see also

Zito v. Steeplechase Films, Inc., 267 F.Supp.2d 1022, 1025 (N.D.

Case 4:07-cv-03010-CW Document 29 Filed 08/20/07 Page 7 of 10
United States District Court

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 8

Cal. 2003) ("Registration of a copyrighted work with the Copyright

Office is a prerequisite to filing suit under copyright law. 

Registration is a jurisdictional requirement." (internal citations

omitted)); Jefferson Airplane v. Berkeley Systems, Inc., 886

F.Supp. 713, 714-15 (N.D. Cal. 1994) (same). 

Although CZM clearly cannot bring a suit for infringement of

any copyright in its Interpretive Key because it has not registered

that material, neither party cites any controlling case law

establishing whether registration is required for Optovue's claim

for declaratory relief related to the Interpretive Key and the

Court is aware of none. The parties cite district court cases from

other districts, one of which supports a finding of jurisdiction,

Application Science & Tech., LLC v. Statmon Techs. Corp., 2006 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 35885, *1 (N.D. Ill.), and two which do not, Burns v.

Rockwood Dist. Co., 481 F. Supp. 841 (N.D. Ill. 1979); Prospect

Planet, LLC v. PaychecksforLife.com, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 835

(D.N.D. 2003). 

Optovue argues that even if CZM could not actually bring a

suit for infringement, there is a justiciable case or controversy

because CZM has stated that Optovue's use of the Interpretive Key

material "is a clear infringement of CZM's copyright." Complaint,

Exhibit B at 2. Therefore, Optovue argues that it has a reasonable

apprehension of litigation. 

This appears to be the basis upon which the Northern District

of Illinois found jurisdiction over a declaratory relief claim

related to non-infringement of an unregistered copyright in

Application Science. In that case, the party seeking the

Case 4:07-cv-03010-CW Document 29 Filed 08/20/07 Page 8 of 10
United States District Court

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 9

declaratory relief had been sued for infringement under "common law

copyright law" in state court. 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35885, at *1.

The Illinois court noted that there were no cases on point and

posed the question, "can a party accuse another of infringement and

prevent the alleged infringer from seeking redress by failing to

bring a coercive lawsuit?" Id. Noting that the Copyright Act

preempts any state common law copyright law and citing the policy

behind the Declaratory Judgment Act, the Application Science court

found that the answer to that question must be in the negative

"when the accuser seeks to prevent the alleged infringer from

seeking redress by failing to register the copyright." Id. 

Although CZM in this case has voiced its belief that it has

rights to its unregistered copyrights, it has not filed any

litigation alleging infringement. Further, CZM's failure to

register the copyright will prevent it from bringing any suit for

infringement. Unlike the defendant in Application Science, CZM has

not filed a state court suit alleging infringement. Therefore,

there are no grounds on which to find that CZM has tried to

circumvent Optovue's rights by not registering its copyright. The

Court finds that any apprehension of infringement litigation is too

remote to support a claim under the declaratory judgment act.

Optovue's third claim seeking a declaration of noninfringement

of copyright is dismissed without leave to amend. Optovue may

amend its complaint to seek declaratory relief with respect to any

valid CZM copyrights on which it has reason to fear litigation.

Case 4:07-cv-03010-CW Document 29 Filed 08/20/07 Page 9 of 10
United States District Court

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 10

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS CZM's motion to

dismiss Optovue's sixth and third claims with leave to amend and

GRANTS CZM's motion for a more definite statement of Optovue's

fourth claim. Optovue shall file its amended complaint within two

weeks of the date of this order. Any motion to dismiss shall be

filed two weeks thereafter and noticed for hearing on October 25,

2007 at 2:00 pm. The case management conference set for September

25, 2007 will be heard on October 25 at 2:00 pm. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8/20/07

Dated: ________________________ 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-03010-CW Document 29 Filed 08/20/07 Page 10 of 10