Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01114/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01114-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 Patent Infringement

---

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

1

 Acacia's Motion purports to "move[] to dismiss Defendant Game Link's . . . Eighth . . . and

Ninth Counterclaim[s] . . . for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6)." (Acacia's Motion at 1:3-

6.) Acacia purports to attach Game Link's Answer and Counter-Claim as Exhibit 1 to its Motion. In

fact, Exhibit 1 is Defendant New Destiny's Answer and Counter Claim. (Acacia's Motion Ex. 1.) 

Accordingly, this Court treats Acacia's Motion as a Motion to Dismiss New Destiny's (not Game

Link's) Eighth and Ninth Counterclaims.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

In re: ACACIA MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES

CORPORATION.

 /

NO. C 05-01114 JW 

ORDER DENYING ACACIA'S MOTION

TO DISMISS NEW DESTINY'S EIGHTH

COUNTERCLAIM AND GRANTING

ACACIA'S MOTION TO DISMISS NEW

DESTINY'S NINTH COUNTERCLAIM

I. INTRODUCTION

This is a patent infringement lawsuit in which Plaintiff Acacia Media Technologies

Corporation ("Acacia") claims that various internet-based adult entertainment providers infringe U.S.

Patents Nos. 5,132,992 and 6,144,702, which Acacia owns. In response, Defendant New Destiny

Internet Group, LLC ("New Destiny") asserts nine counterclaims against Acacia. Presently before this

Court is Acacia's Motion to Dismiss New Destiny's Eighth and Ninth Counterclaims for Failure to

State a Claim. (See Acacia's Motion to Dismiss Defendants' Eighth and Ninth Counterclaims for

Failure to State a Claim, hereinafter "Acacia's Motion," Docket Item No. 43 in Central District of

California Case No. SA CV 02-1040.)1

 Based upon the arguments advanced by the parties, and for the

reasons set forth below, this Court GRANTS Acacia's Motion in part and DENIES it in part.

Case 5:05-cv-01114-JW Document 46 Filed 07/19/05 Page 1 of 13
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

II. BACKGROUND

New Destiny alleges, inter alia, that Acacia is and has been "threaten[ing], harass[ing], and

intimidat[ing] [New Destiny] and other companies in [New Destiny's] industry into paying [Acacia]

for license[s] to patents [that] it and they have not infringed and do not infringe." (New Destiny's

Opposition to Acacia's Motion, hereinafter "New Destiny's Opposition," Docket Item No. 188 in

Central District of California Case No. SA CV 02-1040, Ex. 1 at 42:12-14.) According to New

Destiny, Acacia perceived New Destiny and others in New Destiny's industry as unsophisticated, and

so "create[d] an atmosphere of fear so as to force [New Destiny] and other companies in [New

Destiny's] industry . . . to pay royalties rather than defend against objectively baseless patent

infringement suits." (New Destiny's Opposition Ex. 1 at 42:14-20.) As part of its campaign to "create

an atmosphere of fear," Acacia allegedly 

mailed documents to [New Destiny] and others in [New Destiny's] industry, falsely stating that

Acacia had patent claims 'covering content delivery methods such as video on demand, audio

on demand, and video streaming.' Acacia made no mention in this correspondence that the

scope of its patent claims was very narrow and covered only very specific systems and

methods. Instead Acacia stated, incorrectly and without investigation, that [New Destiny's]

systems and methods used Acacia's patented systems and methods.

(New Destiny's Opposition Ex. 1 at 43:2-8.) Furthermore, New Destiny alleges, Acacia repeatedly

and publicly overstated the breadth of its patents. (New Destiny's Opposition Ex. 1 at 43:9-13

("Acacia . . . continued to falsely state that its patents covered all methods and systems for transmitting

audio and/or video information in press releases, interviews, and in pleadings to this Court[,] [but]

[t]hese public statements all ignored the narrow scope of the claims that were obtained by the named

inventors of the patents now allegedly owned by Acacia"); see also New Destiny's Opposition Ex. 1 at

44:8-26, 47:1-15, 47:20-48:7.) "Had Acacia, in fact, conducted . . . analyses [of prior art and other

validity issues]," New Destiny alleges, "[Acacia] would have been fully aware of the prosecution

histories of its patents and that its patent claims could not be given the broad scope they later urged in

their media campaign." (New Destiny's Opposition Ex. 1 at 43:24-26.) "As such," New Destiny

concludes, 

Case 5:05-cv-01114-JW Document 46 Filed 07/19/05 Page 2 of 13
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

 Later, on November 21, 2003, pursuant to stipulation, this Court set aside the default

judgment entered against Wild Ventures.

3

those later claims were knowingly false and intended to intimidate, harass, and instill fear in

those companies in [New Destiny's] industry, with the intent of interfering with the business

relationships between [New Destiny] and its existing and prospective customers, and to further

intimidate companies in [New Destiny's] industry to entering into unnecessary patent royalty

agreements. 

(New Destiny's Opposition Ex. 1 at 43:26-44:3.) New Destiny claims that Acacia's posturing was

part and parcel of its business plan to "'secure a revenue stream of some $200 million a year, without

writing a single line of code.'" (New Destiny's Opposition Ex. 1 at 45:1-2.) To support its claim,

New Destiny quotes an article from technologymarketing.com, which allegedly states that:

[Acacia CEO Paul] Ryan and his team of executives decided it would be better for the firm if

they could get other companies to pay up without the hassle of forcing them to do so through a

lawsuit . . . [.] Acacia also decided that alleged infringers would sign up more quickly if it

looked as if everyone else were jumping on the bandwagon. Ryan launched a rollout plan that

involved convincing a host of smaller firms to sign up, and the subsequent publicizing of those

signings in order to create a sense of momentum for Acacia's claims . . . . By selecting

fragmented markets rather than going after big players like MSN or AOL, Acacia hoped to

avoid getting embroiled in a debilitating legal battle. 'My approach is to get some deals done

and get some goodwill,' says Rob Berman, Acacia's senior vp [sic] of business development. 

'I don't want to end up in the bowels of legal hell.' . . . Acacia hoped that the adult

entertainment industry would be low-hanging fruit. After all, online adult entertainment is a

fragmented and apparently incoherent set of companies, full of business amateurs who, Acacia

hoped, would probably rather pay a percentage than get halled into court.

(New Destiny's Opposition Ex. 1 at 45:3-17.)

On July 14, 2003, in a separate patent infringement lawsuit, Acacia Media Technologies

Corporation v. Wild Ventures, LLC, No. SACV 02-1053 AHS (MLGx), which involved the same

patents at issue in this lawsuit, Judge Alicemarie Stotler granted Acacia a default judgment and an

injunction against Defendant Wild Ventures, LLC ("Wild Ventures"). (New Destiny's Opposition Ex.

1 at 45:18-26.)2

 According to New Destiny, "Similar default injunctions were entered against

Extreme Productions (SACV 02-CV-1062), Go Entertainment (SACV 03-CV-204), Lace Productions

(SACV 02-CV-1047), and WebZotic LLC (SACV 02-CV-1065)." (New Destiny's Opposition Ex. 1 at

45:26-46:2.) Thereafter, Acacia allegedly embarked upon a media campaign that misrepresented the

nature of the default injunctions. Although the default injunctions were entered because the defendants

Case 5:05-cv-01114-JW Document 46 Filed 07/19/05 Page 3 of 13
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

failed to respond to Acacia's lawsuit, Acacia allegedly told the media that "these rulings vindicated

Acacia's claims regarding the allegedly broad scope of its patents." (New Destiny's Opposition Ex. 1

at 46:14-15.) New Destiny cites an article in CNET news.com as an illustration. In it, the author

explains that, 

The company [Acacia] has won a preliminary injunction against five adult entertainment Web

sties, barring them from using on-demand digital video or audio online, or providing

advertising links to any other such sites. The ruling was a default decision, after the five

companies declined to respond to a lawsuit, but does mark the first court validation of

sweeping patent claims that could ultimately encompass virtually every site offering online

multimedia content. Acacia owns patents on the process of transmitting compressed audio or

video, which is one of the most fundamental multimedia technologies used on the Internet. 'We

will not allow for the unauthorized use of our technology,' said Rob Berman, Acacia's general

counsel. 'Although not our preference, we are willing to use the power of the court where

necessary to stop unauthorized use.' 

(New Destiny's Opposition Ex. 1 at 46:16-27 (first emphasis added).) On July 18, 2003, Rob Berman

allegedly told Wired News that "Acacia's patents 'cover just about every form of digital audio and

video distribution... [sic] these [sic] kinds of activities violate Acacia's intellectual property rights: 

pushing MP3s from peer-to-peer groups, streaming newscasts from Internet radio sites and delivering

movies through cable networks.'" (New Destiny's Opposition Ex. 1 at 47:1-5.) Furthermore, on

September 12, 2003, and again on September 15, 2003, Acacia allegedly issued press releases, in

which it stated "that its 'DMT technology, which is covered by pioneering patents, relates to audio and

video transmission and receiving systems, commonly known as audio on-demand, video on-demand,

and audio/video streaming, and is used for distributing content via several means including Internet,

cable television, direct broadcast satellite, and wireless systems.'" (New Destiny's Opposition Ex. 1

at 47:20-25.) 

New Destiny argues that Acacia's patent infringement and business tort claims against New

Destiny are "objectively baseless." (New Destiny's Opposition Ex. 1 at 41:26-42:5, 47:26-27, 48:16-

18, 49:4-7.) New Destiny also argues that Acacia's statements to the press are "false, misleading, and

intimidating" and "were made . . . with the intent to make others reluctant to engage in . . . business

with Defendant, to intimidate others in Defendant's industry into paying Acacia for patent licenses that

they did not need to enter but entered to avoid further harassment and potential baseless infringement

Case 5:05-cv-01114-JW Document 46 Filed 07/19/05 Page 4 of 13
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

litigation." (New Destiny's Opposition Ex. 1 at 47:26-48:6.) Acacia's conduct, Defendant

counterclaims, constitutes Violation of CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200 (Eighth Counterclaim) and

Abuse of Process (Ninth Counterclaim). (New Destiny's Opposition Ex. 1 at 41:14-49:19.) Acacia

here moves to dismiss these counterclaims.

III. STANDARDS

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of the claims stated in a

complaint. In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court must accept as true all allegations of material

fact and must construe said allegations in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Western

Reserve Oil & Gas Co. v. New, 765 F.2d 1428, 1430 (9th Cir. 1985). Any existing ambiguities must

be resolved in favor of the pleading. Walling v. Beverly Enterprises, 476 F.2d 393, 396 (9th Cir.

1973). Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957), sets forth the strict standard for granting a Rule

12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss must not be granted "unless it appears

beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle

him to relief." Id. at 45-46. As the Ninth Circuit has observed, "The [Rule 12(b)(6)] motion to

dismiss for failure to state a claim is viewed with disfavor and is rarely granted." Gilligan v. Jamco

Develop. Corp., 108 F.3d 246, 249 (9th Cir. 1997). A motion to dismiss a counterclaim under Rule

12(b)(6) is treated the same as a motion to dismiss a complaint. Fabricant v. Sears Roebuck, 202

F.R.D. 306, 308 (S.D. Fla. 2001) (citing KRW Sales, Inc. v. Kristel Corp., 154 F.R.D. 186, 187 (N.D.

Ill. 1994)). 

IV. DISCUSSION

A. New Destiny's Eighth Counterclaim: Violation of CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200

New Destiny's Eight Counterclaim against Acacia is for Violation of CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE

§ 17200. The purpose of § 17200 is to preserve fair business competition. Cel-Tech

Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163, 180 (1999) (quoting Barquis

v. Merchants Collection Ass'n, 7 Cal. 3d 94, 110 (1972)). Section 17200 prohibits five wrongs: (1)

unlawful business acts/practices; (2) unfair business acts/practices; (3) fraudulent business

Case 5:05-cv-01114-JW Document 46 Filed 07/19/05 Page 5 of 13
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

acts/practices; (4) unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising; and (5) any act prohibited by

CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17500-17577.5. CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200;WILLIAM L. STERN,

BUS. & PROF. C. § 17200 PRACTICE § 3:13 (2005). Only the first three wrongs are relevant here. (See

New Destiny's Opposition at 5:6-6:27 (arguing that New Destiny has alleged that Acacia has engaged

in "fraudulent" business acts), 7:1-11:2 (arguing that New Destiny has alleged that Acacia has engaged

in "unlawful" business acts), 11:3-13:13 (arguing that New Destiny has alleged that Acacia has

engaged in "unfair" business acts).)

At minimum, New Destiny arguably alleges that Acacia engaged in an "unfair" business acts or

practices. Generally speaking, the "unfair" standard under § 17200 is broad by design. STERN, supra,

§ 3:113 ("The 'unfair' standard is intentionally broad, allowing courts maximum discretion to prohibit

new schemes to defraud") (citing Motors, Inc. v. Times Mirror Co., 102 Cal. App. 3d 735, 740

(1980)). However, in Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., 20

Cal. 4th 163 (1999), the California Supreme Court changed the test of "unfairness" for commercial

cases. Id. § 3:114. In Cel-Tech, the Court held that, in cases between business competitors, "unfair"

means "conduct that threatens an incipient violation of an antitrust law, or violates the policy or spirit

of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law, or

otherwise significantly threatens or harms competition." Cel-Tech, 20 Cal. 4th at 187. Acacia and

New Destiny dispute whether Cel-Tech's narrower test of "unfairness" applies here. (Acacia's

Motion at 4:24 ("Defendant does not come close to pleading an antitrust-related cause of action [as

required by Cel-Tech]"); New Destiny's Opposition at 12:23-24 ("Defendant need not satisfy CelTech's test for 'unfair' to state a claim under section 17200"); Acacia's Reply Brief Re: Acacia's

Motion, hereinafter "Acacia's Reply," Docket Item No. 198 in Central District of California Case No.

SA CV 02-1040, at 6:5 ("Defendants therefore cannot escape the standard set forth in Cel-Tech").) 

This Court need not determine whether Cel-Tech's narrower test of "unfairness" applies here as a

matter of law because, even if it does, New Destiny states a claim under it. 

Antitrust law covers patent infringement lawsuits initiated in bad faith. As the Ninth Circuit

Case 5:05-cv-01114-JW Document 46 Filed 07/19/05 Page 6 of 13
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

observed in Handgards, Inc. v. Ethicon, Inc., 601 F.2d 986, 993 (9th Cir. 1979), 

[Patent] infringement actions initiated and conducted in bad faith contribute nothing to the

furtherance of the policies of either the patent law or the antitrust law. The district court was

correct in holding, in effect, that such actions may constitute an attempt to monopolize violative

of Section 2 of the antitrust law.

New Destiny has alleged that Acacia initiated its patent infringement lawsuit against New Destiny in

bad faith. In particular, New Destiny alleges that:

Acacia has (i) made knowingly false and/or misleading statements about the systems and

methods covered by its patents; (ii) made knowingly false and misleading statements about the

validity of its patents . . . ; (iii) made false statements, without investigations, about alleged

infringement of its patents by Defendant and others; (iv) filed and is prosecuting objectively

baseless patent infringement lawsuits, without pre-suit investigation against Defendant and

others in Defendant's industry; (v) filed and prosecuted objectively baseless patent

infringement lawsuits, without pre-suit investigation, against companies which Acacia's

executives concede to do not even need to license the patents-in-suit; (vi) filed and is

prosecuting objectively baseless claims of unfair competition, interference with business

advantage, and trade libel against Defendant and others in Defendant's industry; (vii) sought

and obtained default injunction orders against certain companies incorporating knowingly false

statement about the scope of its patent claims; and (viii) has touted those default injunction

orders in the press to validate its knowingly false statements about the systems and methods

covered by its patents.

(New Destiny's Opposition Ex. 1 at 41:21-42:9.) Construing New Destiny's pleading in the light most

favorable to it, this Court concludes that New Destiny has alleged conduct that "threatens an incipient

violation of an antitrust law, or violates the policy or spirit of one of those laws . . . , or otherwise

significantly threatens or harms competition." Cel-Tech, 20 Cal. 4th at 187; see also Lynch v.

Magnavox Co., 94 F.2d 883 (9th Cir. 1938) (holding that plaintiff stated an antitrust claim against

defendants when it alleged that defendants attempted to monopolize by initiating 55 patent infringement

lawsuits and mailing numerous letters threatening to sue for patent infringement); Kobe, Inc. v.

Dempsey Pump Co., 198 F.2d 416 (10th Cir. 1952) (holding that evidence that patent holders had

given wide publicity to the number of patents they held--many of which had expired--supported a

finding that the patent holders had engaged in monopolistic practices). 

Accordingly, this Court DENIES Acacia's Motion to Dismiss New Destiny's Eight

Counterclaim for Violation of CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200.

Case 5:05-cv-01114-JW Document 46 Filed 07/19/05 Page 7 of 13
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

B. New Destiny's Ninth Counterclaim: Abuse of Process

New Destiny's Ninth Counterclaim against Acacia is for Abuse of Process. As far as this

Court can tell, New Destiny premises its Abuse of Process counterclaim upon two "abuses" of

"process." First, New Destiny appears to allege that this lawsuit, which New Destiny characterizes

as "objectively baseless," is abuse of process. (See New Destiny's Opposition Ex. 1 at 49:5-7

("Acacia has abused the legal process by instituting and maintaining its objectively baseless patent

infringement and business tort claims against Defendant . . . to accomplish a purpose for which the

legal system is not designed or intended").) Second, New Destiny appears to allege that Acacia's

lawsuits against others is abuse of process. (See New Destiny's Opposition Ex. 1 at 45:18-46:27,

47:26-48:7, 48:14-15, 48:21-24 (alleging that Acacia, after obtaining default injunctions against other

defendants in other cases, embarked upon a media campaign that misrepresented the nature of the

default injunction); see also New Destiny's Opposition at 20:19-23 ("Acacia has filed a multitude of

dubious lawsuits against defendants it perceived as 'low-hanging fruit,' then deceptively leveraged

publicity generated by those lawsuits to coerce defendants--and others--into paying for licenses from

Acacia").) Neither of these alleged "abuses" of "process" are a sufficient basis upon which to

premise an abuse of process claim.

First, "[t]he mere filing of a complaint or maintenance of a lawsuit, even for an improper

purpose, does not constitute an abuse of process." 6A CAL. JUR. 3D Assault and Other Willful Torts §

17 (2003); see also Loomis v. Murphy, 217 Cal. App. 3d 589, 595 (1990) ("[I]t is well settled that . . .

'the mere filing or maintenance of a lawsuit--even for an improper purpose--is not a proper basis for

an abuse of process action'") (citing Oren Royal Oaks Venture v. Greenberg, Bernhard, Weiss &

Karma, Inc., 42 Cal. 3d 1157, 1169 (1986)); RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 682 cmt. a (1977)

("The gravamen of [abuse of process] . . . is not . . . the wrongful initiation of . . . civil proceedings");

5 B.E. WITKIN, SUMMARY OF CALIFORNIA LAW § 460 (9th ed. 1988) ("Obviously, the mere filing of a

lawsuit is not an abuse of process"). Thus, Acacia's initiation of this lawsuit cannot form the basis of

New Destiny's abuse of process counterclaim. See Loomis, 217 Cal. App. 3d at 595 (affirming the

Case 5:05-cv-01114-JW Document 46 Filed 07/19/05 Page 8 of 13
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

dismissal of an abuse of process claim because the pleading "contained no allegations of misuse of

process other than the filing of the complaint"). New Destiny conclusorily argues that its "allegations

are extensive and encompass much more than 'the mere filing or maintenance of a lawsuit.'" (New

Destiny's Opposition at 22:6-7.) Notably, however, New Destiny fails to support this argument with

specific citations to its pleading.

Second, Acacia's other lawsuits against other defendants--and the default injunctions obtained

therefrom--cannot form the basis of New Destiny's abuse of process counterclaim against Acacia. In

every case upon which New Destiny relies, the alleged "process" that the

defendants/counterdefendants allegedly "abused" is always directed at the plaintiff/counterclaimant. 

See Coleman v. Gulf Ins. Group, 41 Cal. 3d 782, 788 (1986) (plaintiff alleged that defendant

wrongfully appealed a judgment in plaintiff's favor); Drum v. Bleau, Fox & Assocs., 107 Cal. App.

4th 1009, 1014 (2003) (plaintiff alleged that defendant wrongfully levied plaintiff's bank accounts);

Brown v. Kennard, 94 Cal. App. 4th 40, 43-44 (2001) (plaintiff alleged that defendant wrongfully

levied plaintiff's deposit account); Clark Equip. Co. v. Wheat, 92 Cal. App. 3d 503, 526 (1979)

(counterclaimant alleged that counterdefendant wrongfully obtained two contempt orders against

counterclaimant). Here, Acacia's other lawsuits against other defendants--and the default injunctions

obtained therefrom--simply are too remote to form the basis of New Destiny's abuse of process

counterclaim against Acacia. 

As a final matter, Acacia's alleged misrepresentations to the media regarding the scope of the

default injunctions is not the type of "process" protected by the abuse of process claim. "For purposes

of the tort of abuse of process, the process that is abused must be judicial process. The essence of the

tort lies in the misuse of the power of the court. It is an act done in the name of the court and under its

authority for the purpose of perpetrating an injustice." 6A CAL. JUR. 3D Assault and Other Willful

Torts § 12 (2003) (emphasis added). Statements (or misstatements) to the media, such as those

allegedly made by Acacia, do not abuse judicial process. 

Accordingly, this Court GRANTS Acacia's Motion to Dismiss New Destiny's Ninth

Case 5:05-cv-01114-JW Document 46 Filed 07/19/05 Page 9 of 13
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

Counterclaim for Abuse of Process.

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, this Court DENIES Acacia's Motion to Dismiss New Destiny's

Eighth Counterclaim and GRANTS Acacia's Motion to Dismiss New Destiny's Ninth Counterclaim.

Dated: July 19, 2005

05cv1114mtd-cc-8&9

/s/James Ware 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01114-JW Document 46 Filed 07/19/05 Page 10 of 13
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 11

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Alan P. Block blocka@hbdlawyers.com

Alfredo A. Bismonte abismonte@mount.com

Annamarie A. Daley aadaley@rkmc.com

Bradford P. Lyerla blyerla@marshallip.com

Daniel Harlan Fingerman dfingerman@mount.com

David A. York david.york@lw.com

David J. Silbert djs@kvn.com

Emmett J. McMahon ejmcmahon@rkmc.com

Harold J. McElhinny HmcElhinny@mofo.com

J. Timothy Nardell EfilingJTN@cpdb.com

James Michael Slominski jslominski@hh.com

Jan J. Klohonatz jklohonatz@tcolaw.com

Jason A. Crotty jcrotty@mofo.com

Jeffrey D. Sullivan jeffrey.sullivan@bakerbotts.com

Jeffrey H. Dean jdean@marshallip.com

Jonathan E. Singer singer@fr.com

Juanita R. Brooks brooks@fr.com

Kevin D. Hogg khogg@marshallip.com

Kevin I. Shenkman shenkmank@hbdlawyers.com

Maria K. Nelson mknelson@jonesday.com

Marsha Ellen Mullin memullin@jonesday.com

Michael J. McNamara michael.mcnamara@bakerbotts.com

Mitchell D. Lukin mitch.lukin@bakerbotts.com

Morgan William Tovey mtovey@reedsmith.com

Patrick J. Whalen pwhalen@spencerfane.com

Paul A. Friedman pafriedman@mofo.com

Rachel Krevans rkrevans@mofo.com

Richard R. Patch rrp@cpdb.com

Robert F. Copple rcopple@lrlaw.com

Roderick G. Dorman dormanr@hbdlawyers.com

Sean David Garrison sgarrison@lrlaw.com

Stephen E. Taylor staylor@tcolaw.com

Stephen P. Safranski spsafranski@rkmc.com

Stephen S. Korniczky stephenkorniczky@paulhastings.com

Todd Glen Miller miller@fr.com

Todd R. Tucker ttucker@rennerotto.com

Victor de Gyarfas vdegyarfas@foley.com

Victor George Savikas vgsavikas@jonesday.com

William J. Robinson wrobinson@foley.com

William R. Overend woverend@reedsmith.com

William R. Woodford woodford@fr.com

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN MAILED TO:

Adam Robert Alper

Latham and Watkins

135 Commonwealth Drive

Menlo Park, Ca., 94025, 

Case 5:05-cv-01114-JW Document 46 Filed 07/19/05 Page 11 of 13
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 12

Albert L. Underhill

Merchant & Gould

80 S. 8th Street

Suite 3200

Minneapolis, MN 55415

Andrew D. Raymond

Marshall Gerstein & Borun LLP

6300 Sears Tower

233 South Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60606-6357

C Mark Kittredge

Perkins Coie Brown & Bain PA

P. O. Box 400

Phoenix, AZ 85001-0400

Christopher B. Fagan

Fay Sharpe Fagan Minnich & McKee

7th Floor

1100 Superior Avenue

Cleveland, OH 44114-2518

David P. Pearson

Winthrop & Weinstine, PA

225 S. 6th Ste., 3500

Minneapolis, MN 55415

Douglas W. Sprinkle

Gifford Krass Groh Sprinkle Anderson & Citkowski, P.C.

2701 Troy Center Drive, Suite 330

P. O. Box 7021

Troy, MI 48007-7021

Fritz Byers

824 Spitzer Bldg.,

520 Madison Avenue

Toledo, OH 43604

Jay R. Campbell

Renner Otto Boisselle & Sklar LLP

1621 Euclid Avenue

19th Floor

Cleveland, OH 44115

John C. Reich

Merchant & Gould

80 S. 8th Street

Suite 3200

Minneapolis, MN 55402

Case 5:05-cv-01114-JW Document 46 Filed 07/19/05 Page 12 of 13
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

Mark C. Johnson

Renner Otto Boisselle & Sklar

19th Floor

1621 Euclid Avenue

Cleveland, OH 44115

Mark D. Schneider

Gifford Krass Groh Sprinkle Anderson & Citkowski, P.C.

2701 Troy Center Drive

Suite 330

P. O. Box 7021

Troy, MI 48007-7021

Rebecca A. Bortolotti

Merchant & Gould

80 S. 8th Street

Suite 3200

Minneapolis, MN 55402

Dated: July 19, 2005 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By:/s/JWchambers 

Ronald L. Davis

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:05-cv-01114-JW Document 46 Filed 07/19/05 Page 13 of 13