Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00335/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00335-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:0101 Copyright Infringement (definitions)

---

– 1 – 17-cv-0335 DMS (NLS)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3D4MEDICAL LIMITED, an Irish 

corporation, and 

3D4MEDICAL.COM LLC, a 

Nevada corporation,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 17-cv-0335 DMS (NLS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

TO STAY

v.

ORCA HEALTH, INC., a Delaware 

corporation,

Defendant.

Pending before the Court is Defendant Orca Health, Inc.’s (“Orca Health”)

Motion to Stay pursuant to the first-to-file rule. Plaintiffs 3D4Medical Limited and 

3D4Medical.com LLC (collectively “3D4Medical”)1 filed an opposition to the 

motion, and Orca Health filed a reply. For the reasons discussed below, the motion 

is granted.

/ / /

/ / /

 1 Initially, the Complaint identified one of the Plaintiffs as 3D4Medical LLC. 

Plaintiffs, however, corrected the name to 3D4Medical.com LLC in their opposition 

to the motion. 

Case 3:17-cv-00335-DMS-NLS Document 23 Filed 07/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
– 2 – 17-cv-0335 DMS (NLS)

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

I.

BACKGROUND

A. Utah Action

Orca Health is a Delaware corporation that develops patient education 

software applications (“apps”). One of Orca Health’s apps include Orca Care, 

originally known as “OrcaMD,” which allows physicians to educate their patients 

about their diagnosis and treatment options by using an interactive three-dimensional 

model of the human anatomy.

In July 2014, Orca Health employed Jared Huish as the Vice President of 

Business Development. Huish had access to Orca Health’s confidential and 

proprietary information regarding Orca Care.2 Beginning in 2015, Huish allegedly 

disclosed such information to 3D4Medical, a corporation that also develops patient 

education apps. Subsequently, Huish left Orca Health and joined 3D4Medical. Orca 

Health alleges 3D4Medical acquired and used confidential and proprietary 

information regarding Orca Care to develop competing apps, Complete Ortho and 

Complete Ortho Pro. 

Orca Health also alleges 3D4Medical has developed other apps, including 

Complete Anatomy, Spine Pro III, and Essential Skeleton 4, that allows users to 

visualize, manipulate personalize, and modify anatomical elements in a manner that 

infringes the claims of its U.S. Patent No. 8,908,943. Orca Health contends the

fundamental purpose, interface, and capabilities of 3D4Medical’s apps are embodied 

by the issued claims of the ’943 patent. 

On January 3, 2017, Orca Health filed suit against 3D4Medical Limited, 

 2 Specifically, Orca Health alleges, “Huish had access to all, or a portion, of Orca 

Health’s business plans and market strategies, software research, design, and 

development; product, market, pricing, and sales research and plans; clinical studies 

and hospital trials; and investor, partner, employee, supplier, client, and customer 

lists, information, prospects, communications, and agreements.” (Declaration of 

Michael K. Erickson (“Erickson Decl.”) ¶ 11, Ex. F.)

Case 3:17-cv-00335-DMS-NLS Document 23 Filed 07/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
– 3 – 17-cv-0335 DMS (NLS)

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

3D4Medical.com LLC, 3D4Medical, Inc., and Huish in the U.S. District Court for 

the District of Utah. In the first amended complaint, Orca Health alleges the 

following causes of action: (1) misappropriation of trade secrets, Utah Code § 13-

24-1 et seq., (2) violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), 18 U.S.C. § 

1831 et seq., (3) interference with economic relations, (4) breach of fiduciary duty, 

(5) breach of contract, (6) interference with contract, (7) unjust enrichment, (8)

unfair competition, 15 U.S.C. § 1125, (9) patent infringement, (10) unfair 

competition, Utah Code § 13-5A-101 et seq., and (11) civil conspiracy.3

 On March 

21, 2017, 3D4Medical Limited and 3D4Medical, Inc. filed a motion to transfer the 

Utah action to this Court. That motion is currently pending.

B. California Action

Like Orca Health, 3D4Medical develops patient education apps that allow

users to view, observe, and explore three-dimensional representation of the human 

anatomy. Some of 3D4Medical’s apps include the Heart Pro and Skeleton System 

Pro. 3D4Medical contends “[t]hese proprietary works are protected by U.S. 

copyright registrations.”4

 (Mem. of P. & A. in Opp’n to Mot. at 12.) 

3D4Medical alleges Orca Health has released several apps, such as Heart 

Decide and Orca Care, which copy several distinctive and original features of its 

apps; thereby infringing its copyrights. Specifically, 3D4Medical argues Orca Heath 

copied several features of its apps, including the display of blue pushpins to 

designate features of organs.

On February 17, 2017, approximately 45 days after the commencement of the 

 3 Fourth and fifth causes of action were alleged only against Huish. Sixth through 

ninth causes of action were alleged only against 3D4Medical Limited, 

3D4Medical.com LLC, and 3D4Medical, Inc. The remaining causes of action were 

alleged against all defendants.

4 On February 16 and 17, 2017, 3D4Medical submitted an application to the U.S. 

Copyright Office for registration of copyright for Heart Pro, Heart Pro III, and 

Skeleton System Pro apps. (Compl., Exs. L–Q.)

Case 3:17-cv-00335-DMS-NLS Document 23 Filed 07/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
– 4 – 17-cv-0335 DMS (NLS)

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

Utah action, 3D4Medical filed the present action against Orca Health. In the 

complaint, 3D4Medical alleges the following causes of action: (1) copyright 

infringement, (2) trade dress infringement in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1125(a)(1)(A), (3) unfair competition, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 1700 et seq., and 

(4) breach of contract. On April 18, 2017, Orca Health filed a motion to stay 

proceedings pending the resolution of the motion to transfer in the Utah action.

II.

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to the first-to-file rule, federal district courts have discretion “to stay 

proceedings if a similar case with substantially similar issues and parties was 

previously filed in another district court.” Kohn Law Grp., Inc. v. Auto Parts Mfg. 

Miss., Inc., 787 F.3d 1237, 1239 (9th Cir. 2015). “The first-to-file rule was 

developed to serve[ ] the purpose of promoting efficiency well and should not be 

disregarded lightly.” Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prod., Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 625 (9th 

Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see Crawford v. Bell, 

599 F.2d 890, 893 (9th Cir. 1979) (“increasing calendar congestion in the federal 

courts makes it imperative to avoid concurrent litigation in more than one forum 

whenever consistent with the rights of the parties.”). Courts analyze three factors to 

determine the applicability of the first-to-file rule: (1) “chronology of the lawsuits,”

(2) “similarity of the parties,” and (3) “similarity of the issues.” Kohn Law Grp., 

Inc., 787 F.3d at 1240. 

A. Chronology of the Lawsuits

The first factor, chronology of the lawsuits, “simply requires that the case in 

question was filed later in time.” Therapy Stores, Inc. v. JGV Apparel Grp., LLC, 

No. 4:16-CV-02588-YGR, 2016 WL 4492583, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2016) 

(citations omitted). The Utah action was filed on January 3, 2017, and the California 

action was filed on February 17, 2017. Because the Utah action is the first-filed 

action, the first factor weighs in favor of applying the first-to-file rule.

Case 3:17-cv-00335-DMS-NLS Document 23 Filed 07/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
– 5 – 17-cv-0335 DMS (NLS)

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

B. Similarity of the Parties

The second factor, similarity of the parties, “does not require exact identity of 

the parties.” Kohn Law Grp., Inc., 787 F.3d at 1240 (citations omitted). Rather, the 

first-to-file rule “requires only substantial similarity of parties.” Id. (citations 

omitted). Here, the parties are substantially similar. Orca Health is a defendant in 

this action and the plaintiff in the Utah action. 3D4Medical Limited and 

3D4Medical.com LLC are plaintiffs in this action and defendants in the Utah action. 

3D4Medical argues this factor is not met because this action does not include 

Huish or 3D4Medical, Inc., and “[t]his difference destroys any similarity between 

the parties and further bars application of the first-to-file rule.” (Mem. of P. & A. in 

Opp’n to Mot. at 15.) However, the first-to-file rule does not require that the parties 

in the relevant actions be identical, but only that they be “substantially similar.” 

Kohn Law Grp., Inc., 787 F.3d at 1240. Because there is sufficient similarity 

between the parties in the two actions, the second factor warrants application of the 

first-to-file rule.

C. Similarity of the Issues

Lastly, the third factor requires the Court to look to the similarity of the issues 

in the relevant actions. The first-to-file rule does not require identical issues or 

“exact parallelism,” but requires substantial similarity of the issues. See Kohn Law 

Grp., Inc., 787 F.3d at 1240; see Nakash v. Marciano, 882 F.2d 1411, 1416 (9th Cir. 

1989) (“exact parallelism does not exist, but it is not required. It is enough if the 

two proceedings are ‘substantially similar.’”). In order to determine whether the

actions involve substantially similar issues, courts “look at whether there is 

‘substantial overlap’ between the two suits.” Kohn Law Grp., Inc., 787 F.3d at 1240.

Both the instant action and the Utah action involve patient education apps 

created by 3D4Medical and Orca Health. In the Utah action, Orca Health argues in 

part 3D4Medical misappropriated the features of the Orca Care app in developing 

competing apps, thereby misappropriating trade secrets, interfering with its 

Case 3:17-cv-00335-DMS-NLS Document 23 Filed 07/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
– 6 – 17-cv-0335 DMS (NLS)

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

economic relations, and engaging in unfair competition. In contrast, 3D4Medical 

contends in this action that the Orca Care app contains identical features as its apps, 

resulting in copyright infringement, trade dress infringement, and unfair 

competition. 

Both actions also include unfair competition claims and involve similar 

claims, such as breach of contract, interference of contract, misappropriation of trade 

secrets, and trade dress infringement. Although the specific causes of action in the 

two actions may differ, the parties ask for similar relief, and the discovery and 

evidence necessary to litigate each action are substantially similar.5

 See Bashiri v. 

Sadler, No. CV 07-2268-PHX-JAT, 2008 WL 2561910, at *2 (D. Ariz. June 25, 

2008) (finding the third factor satisfied because, “[w]hile the specific legal issues 

vary across the litigations, the discovery and evidence necessary to litigate each is 

substantially similar.”). Indeed, in a brief filed in the Utah action, 3D4Medical states

“the technology at issue in the related California Lawsuit concerns the same 

3DMedical and Orca technologies, e.g., the ability to display and manipulate 

anatomical images in a software application.... These technologies are very similar. 

Both the parties and technologies involved in these two actions are substantially 

similar so factual matters will overlap[.]” (Erickson Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. D.) Due to the 

overlapping claims and technologies, a significant portion of discovery in the actions 

will be duplicative. See Calderon v. Cargill, Inc., No. CV137046GHKJEMX, 2013 

WL 12205633, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2013) (finding the third factor satisfied 

because “significant judicial resources will be conserved by having discovery 

managed in one district.”). Because there is “substantial overlap” between the two 

actions, the third factor also weighs in favor of applying the first-to-file rule. 

Accordingly, all of the elements of the first-to-file rule are met, and in the interests

 5 In this action, 3D4Medical seeks in part injunctive relief precluding Orca Heath 

from distributing Orca Care and Heart Decide apps. In the Utah action, Orca Health 

also seeks in part injunctive relief against 3D4Medical. 

Case 3:17-cv-00335-DMS-NLS Document 23 Filed 07/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
– 7 – 17-cv-0335 DMS (NLS)

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

of efficiency and judicial economy, the first-to-file rule applies to this action.

6

 

III.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Orca Health’s motion and stays 

this action pending resolution of the motion to transfer venue in the Utah action. 

Should the Utah court grant the motion to transfer, the parties shall file a notice of 

related cases and this Court will relate and consolidate the two actions. If, however, 

the Utah court denies the motion to transfer, the parties shall notify this Court within 

14 days of the Utah court’s decision, and the Court will transfer this action to Utah. 

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: July 17, 2017

 6 The parties also dispute whether the balance of convenience favors the California 

action proceeding independently of the Utah action. Because consideration of the 

respective convenience of the two courts is typically addressed by the court in the 

first-filed action, the Court declines to address this argument. See Alltrade, 946 F.2d 

at 628 (“the respective convenience of the two courts,... ‘normally ... should be 

addressed to the court in the first-filed action.’”); see also Juniper Networks, Inc. v. 

Mosaid Techs. Inc., No. C 11-6264 PJH, 2012 WL 1029572, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 

26, 2012) (“it is the court with the first-filed action that should normally weigh the 

balance of convenience and any other factors that might create an exception to the 

first-to-file rule.”).

Case 3:17-cv-00335-DMS-NLS Document 23 Filed 07/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7