Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05368/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05368-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

1The Court also GRANTS plaintiff’s unopposed request for judicial notice (Docket No. 145).

2Although the Court dismisses plaintiff’s cause of action under California Business &

Professions Code § 17200, it rejects defendant’s argument that plaintiff’s § 17200 claim requires

allegations of injury to competition. See Docket No. 68.

In addition, the Court agrees with defendant that punitive damages are unavailable for plaintiff’s

Lanham Act claim. It therefore STRIKES plaintiff’s request for punitive damages in connection with

its Lanham Act claim.

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

BEILSTEIN-INSTITUTZURFORDERUNGDER

CHEMISCHEN WISSENSCHAFTEN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

MDL INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-05368 SI

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

On July 28, 2006, the Court heard argument on defendant’s motion to dismiss. Having

considered the arguments of counsel and the papers submitted, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART

and DENIES IN PART defendant’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 124).1

The Court DENIES defendant’s motion as to the following causes of action: tortious interference

with contract; copyright infringement; trade secret misappropriation; and violations of the Lanham Act.

Because the precise factual bases for plaintiff’s remaining causes of action are unclear, the Court

GRANTS the remainder of defendant’s motion, with leave to amend.2 If plaintiff chooses to amend its

complaint, it must ensure that each cause of action clearly states the specific conduct of defendant that

supports that cause of action.

Case 3:04-cv-05368-SI Document 151 Filed 07/28/06 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

2

Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART (Docket No. 124). Plaintiff must file

its amended complaint on or before August 17, 2006. Defendant must respond to the amended

complaint by September 6, 2006. No further amendments will be allowed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 28, 2006 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-05368-SI Document 151 Filed 07/28/06 Page 2 of 2