UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

PREMIER DEALER SERVICE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 Case No. 2:18-cv-735

v. Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.

 Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura

ALLEGIANCE ADMININSTRATORS,

LLC, et al.,

 

Defendants. 

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Premier Dealer Service, Inc.’s (“PDS”) Motion 

for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 100), Defendants Allegiance Administrators, LLC’s 

(“Allegiance”) and Dimension Service Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 

101), and Defendants’ Motion to Strike Exhibits and Arguments in Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment (ECF No. 114). The motions are fully briefed and ripe for adjudication. For the 

following reasons, PDS’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED 

IN PART; Allegiance’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED 

IN PART; and Allegiance’s Motion to Strike is DENIED AS MOOT. 

I. Background and Undisputed Material Facts

A. The Parties and the Automobile Service Contract Business

The Court set out the facts giving rise to this dispute in its November 6, 2018 Opinion 

denying PDS’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The parties rely on the foundational testimony 

from the preliminary injunction hearing in the instant motions for summary judgment. (Pl.’s Mot. 

Summ. J. at 1 [“Pl.’s Mot”], ECF No. 100; Defs.’ Mot. Summ. J. at 6 [“Defs.’ Mot.”], ECF No. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00735-EAS-CMV Doc #: 128 Filed: 07/29/21 Page: 1 of 27 PAGEID #: 5066
2

101.) Thus, the Court will recount the undisputed facts established during the preliminary 

injunction hearing. (Prelim. Inj. Hr’g Tr., ECF No. 29.)

PDS and Allegiance compete as administrators of automobile service contracts (“Service 

Contracts”). Service Contracts, commonly known as extended warranties, are agreements between 

an obligor and a customer purchasing a vehicle. With any Service Contract, the obligor agrees to 

repair or replace, for a specific coverage period, certain vehicle parts following a breakdown. The 

Service Contracts must be backed by an insurance company, which works with the obligor and an 

administrator to approve the terms and manage the risk. The total price of any Service Contract is 

known as the “Dealer Cost.” 

For the customers who enter a Service Contract, the lumpsum Dealer Cost is 

straightforward. For the four other parties involved in any Service Contract (the obligor, 

administrator, insurer, and dealer), however, Dealer Costs are comprised of several parts: first, 

there is the marketing fee, which is set by the obligor and paid to the dealership that sold the 

Service Contract; second, the administration fee, which is a flat fee negotiated between the obligor 

and the administrator; third, the insurance fee, which a pre-selected insurer determines and 

approves; fourth, the road assistance fee for which the obligor also negotiates; and fifth—and most 

importantly for purposes of this case—the “Reserve,” which is the calculated amount that the 

obligor and the administrator determine and then set aside to pay future claims. 

The Reserve amount is critical to an obligor’s success because the obligor must market 

programs at competitive prices but must also allocate an appropriate amount for future claims. If 

the Reserve amount does not cover a claim, then the obligor and the insurer bear the loss. To 

protect each party involved, the Dealer Costs and its five components are generally considered 

confidential throughout the industry.

Case: 2:18-cv-00735-EAS-CMV Doc #: 128 Filed: 07/29/21 Page: 2 of 27 PAGEID #: 5067
3

B. PDS Relationship With Tricor Automotive Group

Tricor Automotive Group (“Tricor”), which is not a party to this case, was the obligor in 

all Service Contracts relevant to this lawsuit. Tricor offers affiliated automobile dealerships 

throughout Canada various Service Contracts that those dealerships sell to customers buying new 

and used vehicles. From 2001 to May 29, 2018, PDS served as Tricor’s administrator of Service 

Contracts. Within that role, PDS began using its proprietary “Rating Process” in 2008 to set 

Reserves for Service Contracts sold through Tricor-affiliated dealerships in Canada. PDS also 

contracted with Tricor to permit Tricor to sell PDS’s “Lifetime Powertrain Loyalty Program 

(LPLP) Certificate”—which are the subject of PDS’s copyright infringement claim.

1. The 2011 Marketing Agreement and PDS’s Lifetime Powertrain Loyalty 

Certificates

In 2011, Tricor and PDS entered into a Private Label Marketing Agreement. (“Marketing 

Agreement,” ECF No. 46-4.) Pursuant to the Marketing Agreement, PDS authorized Tricor to 

market PDS’s “aftermarket automobile products and programs for automobile dealers”; “vehicle 

service agreements”; “prepaid maintenance plans”; “lifetime loyalty programs”; and “limited 

warranty programs[.]” (Id. at 1.) In the Marketing Agreement, Tricor agreed not “make use of or 

disclose to any third parties, any Proprietary Information obtained as a result of or in connection 

with the relationship contemplated herein.” (Id. at 3.) Additionally, the agreement specified that 

“[a]ll forms, records and supplies including, but not limited to insurance forms and rate charts, 

provided by [PDS], are and will remain the property of [PDS].” (Id. at 5.)

As the Marketing Agreement mentions, PDS agreed to let Tricor sell Lifetime Powertrain 

Loyalty Program Certificates (“LPLP Certificates”) created by PDS. (Id. at 1.) PDS has two 

copyrights registered with the U.S. Copyrights Office for its LPLP Certificates. The first 

copyrighted LPLP Certificate was first published on May 1, 2008 and registered on May 2, 2012. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00735-EAS-CMV Doc #: 128 Filed: 07/29/21 Page: 3 of 27 PAGEID #: 5068
4

(Copyright TX 7-673-553, ECF No. 100-1.) The second copyrighted LPLP Certificate, a 

derivative work of the first copyrighted LPLP Certificate, was first published on June 26, 2012 

and registered on June 4, 2013. (Copyright TX 7-741-273, ECF No. 100-1.)

Importantly, an LPLP Certificate is not a warranty or a vehicle service contract. (See id.; 

Dep. of Lisle Greenweller 61:9–15.) Rather, lifetime powertrain products are “dealership 

giveaway products which promote customer retention and provide for mechanical coverage in the 

event of breakdown upon meeting various service requirements.” (2014 Administration (Program) 

Agreement at 2, ECF No. 46-1.) The composition of the copyrighted LPLP Certificates are 

relevant here. Copyrighted LPLP Certificate TX 7-741-273 is a two-page form. (Copyright TX 

7-741-273.) The first page contains three sections at the top—covering roughly 25% of the form—

with blank boxes for the filling in of customer information, dealer information, and vehicle and 

certificate information. (Id.) The remainder of the first page and the second page contain six 

additional sections with detailed information about the loyalty program. (Id.) PDS’s copyright 

extends to the “text” of the LPLP Certificates. (Id.)

PDS did not use the copyrighted LPLP Certificates in its relationship with Tricor because 

the copyrighted LPLP Certificates were not tailored for use in Canada. (Greenweller Dep. 61:16–

62:1.) PDS created a derivative LPLP Certificate for Tricor to market in Canada and modified 

only those things specific to Canada (the “Canadian LPLP Certificate”). (Id.; Canadian LPLP 

Certificate, ECF No. 100-2.) Aside from minor editing changes and Canadian-specific terms 

(“kilometres” instead of “miles”; “provinces” instead of “states”), the language in the Canadian 

LPLP Certificate is nearly identical to the copyrighted U.S. LPLP Certificate TX 7-741-273. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00735-EAS-CMV Doc #: 128 Filed: 07/29/21 Page: 4 of 27 PAGEID #: 5069
5

2. The 2014 Administration Agreement, the Rating Process, and the 

Reserves

In 2014, Tricor and PDS executed an Administration (Program) Agreement (“2014 

Agreement”) that set out the parties’ obligations regarding the administration of Service Contracts.

(2014 Agreement, ECF No. 46-1.) The preamble of the 2014 Agreement states that “[Tricor] is 

the administrator of Program Contracts on behalf of [a marketing company] and/or [Tricor’s 

insurer] and wishes to subcontract some of these duties including claims handling to PDS[.]” (Id.

at 1.) Furthermore, the preamble specifies that “[Tricor] also desires PDS to provide analysis and 

support for pricing adjustments as well as aid in designing Program Contracts from time to time[.]” 

(Id.)

In the agreement, the parties defined “Confidential Information” as:

“this Agreement and all data, trade secrets, trademarks or marks, business 

information, Programs, Dealer Cost, and any other information of any kind 

whatsoever that a party herein discloses, either orally or in writing, to the other 

party. A writing shall include an electronic transfer of information by electronic 

mail, over the Internet or otherwise.

(Id. at 3–4.). But nothing in the contract explains what qualifies as either party’s property. The 

2014 Agreement defined the duties of Tricor and PDS related to development and maintenance of 

the Dealer Cost, stating: 

[Tricor] shall be assisted by PDS in co-ordinating Programs with [Tricor’s insurer]

and shall be responsible for development of all PROGRAMS including ... 

Premium, Reserves, and third party fees and commissions. These amounts plus the 

Administration Fees set by PDS shall comprise the Dealer Cost.

Id. at 6. 

According to the 2014 Agreement: “PDS shall manage its administrative rating systems in 

strict compliance with the set Dealer Cost Amounts.” (2014 Agreement at 6.) The Agreement also 

defines “Reserves” as:

"Reserves" shall mean funds required for Claims. Reserves include:

Case: 2:18-cv-00735-EAS-CMV Doc #: 128 Filed: 07/29/21 Page: 5 of 27 PAGEID #: 5070
6

(i) "Base Reserves" which are the minimum amount of funds required 

for PROGRAM claims; and

(ii) "Additional Reserves" which are reserves above the Base Reserves, 

are to be determined by [Tricor] and/or [Tricor’s insurer] and may 

be included on a PROGRAM for an individual Dealer or agent. 

Tricor has had control over the Reserves in its relationship with “various administrators” 

since 1987. (Prelim. Inj. Hr’g Tr. 183:18–22.) In its relationship with PDS, Tricor had the final 

say over the Reserve amount. (Id. at 141:22–142:4.) Tricor and its insurer bear the risks affiliated 

with the Reserve amount. (Id. at 79:6–12, 132:8–11, 183:18–184:1.) Because the obligor in any 

Service Contract must support its Reserves, the obligor—in this case, Tricor—carries the risk. 

(Id.) Tricor also listed the Reserves as equity in its accounting records. (Id. at 144:2–12.) As of 

2018, Tricor-owned companies had $160 million in shareholder equity standing behind its 

Reserves. (Id.)

During the Tricor-PDS relationship, PDS used its proprietary Rating Process to develop 

Reserve amounts for Tricor. (Id. at 79:24–84:6.) PDS created its own process in 2006 for coming 

up with Reserve amounts based on vehicle class taking into account historical data for different 

makes and models of vehicles. (Id. 11:14–14:12.) PDS’s business model is to create a Reserve 

amount to help both PDS and its partner profit. (Id.) Tricor never received PDS’s proprietary 

Rating Process. (Id. at 50:5–11.)

C. End of Tricor-PDS Relationship and Beginning of Tricor-Allegiance 

Relationship

While still working with PDS under the 2014 Agreement, Tricor explored the prospect of 

investing in its own administrative platform. (Id. at 153:4–5.) In September 2017, Tricor

approached PDS to discuss a potential deal. After PDS presented its offer, Tricor’s board of 

directors sought to “find out what the real value of our business might be to somebody.” (Id. at

Case: 2:18-cv-00735-EAS-CMV Doc #: 128 Filed: 07/29/21 Page: 6 of 27 PAGEID #: 5071
7

154:17–18.) To that end, Tricor considered Allegiance, which had been conducting business with 

Tricor-affiliated companies since 2006. (Id. at 154:19–21)

In November 2017, the President of Tricor, Joseph Campbell, contacted Allegiance’s 

Director of Underwriting and Actuarial Services, Paul Miles. Campbell consulted Miles because 

he wanted “somebody who could assist [Tricor] in evaluating the rates” Tricor was charging. (Id.

at 155:13–16.) By December 2017, Tricor and Allegiance had entered a “quasi-general 

agreement” about Tricor’s value. (Id. at 155:2–8.) Around that time, Tricor and Allegiance also 

began discussing “whether [Allegiance] could admin [Tricor’s Service Contracts] knowing it was 

going to disrupt [Tricor’s] business no matter what.” (Id. at 155:2–4.) Then, in January 2018, 

Tricor determined that Allegiance would be able to administer the Service Contracts because 

Allegiance had experience in the industry and actuarial support. (Id. at 155:9–16.)

On January 25, 2018, Campbell sent Miles Tricor’s total Dealer Costs and flat fees that 

represented what the fees “would be on a go-forward business with Allegiance as administrator.” 

(Id. at 195:18–20.) Miles testified, “[k]eep in mind, I don’t know what the flat fees were on the 

previous arrangements, so I don’t know that that’s equal to the reserve that was currently in place, 

but that’s what I’m referring to as a proposed reserve, in case those fees were different.” (Id. at

195:11–15.) With the Dealer Costs and the Reserves that Tricor provided to Allegiance, Miles 

made slight changes to the Reserves for use in the Allegiance-Tricor relationship. (Id. at 198:2–

17.)

On May 29, 2018, the relationship between PDS and Tricor ended. After PDS terminated 

the contract with Tricor, PDS allowed Tricor-affiliated dealers to access its database so that dealers 

could adjust or cancel Service Contracts entered into prior to the termination of the PDS-Tricor 

relationship. (Id. at 73:4–9.) In July 2018, PDS analyzed how Tricor dealerships were using its 

Case: 2:18-cv-00735-EAS-CMV Doc #: 128 Filed: 07/29/21 Page: 7 of 27 PAGEID #: 5072
8

portal. This analysis indicated that Tricor-affiliated dealers continued accessing PDS’s portal to

impermissibly backdate contracts, which allowed the dealers to potentially solicit PDS’s rate 

information, only to then write Service Contracts on Allegiance paper. (Id. at 33:4–7.)

After the PDS and Tricor relationship ended, Tricor sent Allegiance the Canadian LPLP 

Certificates that PDS created for Tricor’s use. (Dep. of Michelle DeFouw 10:6–11:17.) Tricor 

employee Michelle Fish emailed Allegiance employee Michelle DeFouw the PDF documents of 

the LPLP Certificates “currently in use” on April 10, 2018 and told DeFouw that the LPLP 

Certificates were Tricor’s. (Id., Ex. 37, ECF No. 98-9.) In emails and in a phone conversation, 

Fish requested that DeFouw make certain changes to the LPLP Certificates so that Tricor could 

continue using the Certificates with Allegiance. (Id. at 19:2–21.) DeFouw took the PDF 

documents, made the requested changes, and emailed the edited LPLP Certificates (the “new 

Tricor LPLP Certificates”) back to Fish with outlines of the specific changes made. (Id., Ex. 37.) 

For example, DeFouw made minor changes to the language in the Certificates, such as changing 

the website customers were required to use and substituting a different mailing address. (Id.) 

Outside of these small changes, the language and appearance of the documents remained nearly 

identical to the LPLP Certificates PDS created for Tricor. (Id.) DeFouw made the changes either 

from Allegiance’s offices in Dublin, Ohio or from her home in Grove City, Ohio. (Id. at 11:25–

12:8.)

In July 2018, PDS filed this lawsuit against Defendants Allegiance and Dimension (an 

Allegiance affiliate) in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Allegiance removed to this 

Court. PDS then filed a motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin Allegiance from using its

alleged trade secrets. (Mot. Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 4.) Following a hearing, this Court denied 

PDS’s motion for a preliminary injunction on November 6, 2018. (ECF No. 40.) On January 25, 

Case: 2:18-cv-00735-EAS-CMV Doc #: 128 Filed: 07/29/21 Page: 8 of 27 PAGEID #: 5073
9

2019, PDS filed a Second Amended Complaint for misappropriation of trade secrets and copyright 

infringement. (Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 46.) Allegiance answered and also filed 

counterclaims for tortious interference with contract or business relationships, common law unfair 

competition, and a declaratory judgment that PDS does not have a protectable copyright interest 

against Allegiance regarding the LPLP Certificates. (Answer and Counterclaim, ECF No. 50.) 

The parties have now filed cross motions for summary judgment, which are ripe for review.

II. Standard of Review

Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine issue as to 

any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 

The Court may therefore grant a motion for summary judgment if the nonmoving party who has 

the burden of proof at trial fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an 

element that is essential to that party’s case. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).

The “party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing 

the district court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions” of the record which 

demonstrate “the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Id. at 323. The burden then shifts 

to the nonmoving party who “must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for 

trial.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)). 

“The evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in 

his favor.” Id. at 255 (citing Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158–59 (1970)). A 

genuine issue of material fact exists “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a 

verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. at 248; see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith 

Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986) (“The requirement that a dispute be ‘genuine’ means that 

there must be more than some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.”). Consequently, the 

Case: 2:18-cv-00735-EAS-CMV Doc #: 128 Filed: 07/29/21 Page: 9 of 27 PAGEID #: 5074
10

central issue is “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to 

a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Hamad v. 

Woodcrest Condo. Ass’n, 328 F.3d 224, 234–35 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 

251–52).

III. Analysis

A. Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

The parties have filed cross motions for summary judgment on PDS’s claim for 

misappropriation of trade secrets. (Pl.’s Mot. at 9; Defs.’ Mot. at 10.) In support of their motions, 

the parties rely on testimony from the preliminary injunction hearing and additional evidence 

obtained during discovery following the denial of PDS’s motion for a preliminary injunction. 1

PDS claims that Allegiance misappropriated the Reserves it received from Tricor. (Pl.’s 

Mot. at 10.) To prevail on a misappropriation of trade secrets claim, a plaintiff must show by a 

preponderance of the evidence that: (1) a trade secret exists; (2) the defendants acquired the trade 

secret because of a confidential relationship; and (3) the defendants used the trade secret without 

authorization. Hoover Transp. Serv., Inc. v. Frye, 77 F. App’x 776, 782 (6th Cir. 2003); Ohio Rev. 

Code § 1333.61. “Proof by clear and convincing evidence is required to justify relief in trade 

secrets cases under O.R.C. § 1333.62.” Prosonic Corp. v. Stafford, 539 F. Supp. 2d 999, 1005 

(S.D. Ohio 2008). Ohio law defines a “trade secret” as information that:

(1) It derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being 

generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, 

other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use;

1 Allegiance argues that the Court’s factual findings in its preliminary injunction decision are now the law 

of the case. (Defs.’ Mot. at 15.) However, as “a general rule, decisions on preliminary injunctions do not constitute 

law of the case and parties are free to litigate the merits.” William G. Wilcox, D.O., P.C. Employees’ Defined Ben. 

Pension Tr. v. United States, 888 F.2d 1111, 1114 (6th Cir. 1989) (quoting Golden State Transit Corp. v. City of Los 

Angeles, 754 F.2d 830, 832 n. 3 (9th Cir.1985)) (internal quotations omitted). The Court’s preliminary findings are 

not law of the case. Following the preliminary injunction decision, PDS remained free to litigate the merits and 

present more evidence to the Court at the summary judgment stage. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00735-EAS-CMV Doc #: 128 Filed: 07/29/21 Page: 10 of 27 PAGEID #: 5075
11

(2) It is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to 

maintain its secrecy.

Ohio Rev. Code § 1333.61(D).

“The law in Ohio . . . is that to bring a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets, one must 

either own or have possession or a right to control the trade secrets and have taken active steps to 

maintain their secrecy.” RPM, Inc. v. Oatey Co., 2005-Ohio-1280, ¶ 15, 2005 WL 663057, at *3 

(Ohio Ct. App. 2005) (citing Fred Siegel Co., L.P.A. v. Arter & Hadden (1999) 707 N.E.2d 853

(Ohio 1999)). Whether information qualifies as a trade secret is ordinarily a question of fact. 

DeBoer Structures (U.S.A.) Inc. v. Shaffer Tent And Awning Co., 233 F. Supp. 2d 934, 948 (S.D. 

Ohio 2002)

Here, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to PDS, PDS’s trade secret claim fails 

because the undisputed evidence establishes that Tricor owned the Reserves. Thus, PDS cannot 

assert trade secret protection over the Reserves prepared pursuant to the 2014 Agreement between 

PDS and Tricor. And even assuming PDS could assert a possessory interest in the Reserves 

developed using PDS’s Rating Process, Tricor ultimately owned that information and therefore

had a right to share that information with Allegiance. Allegiance thus could not have

misappropriated the Reserves because Allegiance, as a matter of law, had consent to use the 

Reserve information from the owner of that information.

Start with the 2014 Agreement between PDS and Tricor. (2014 Agreement, ECF No. 46-

1.)2

 The Agreement does not expressly state that Tricor owns the Reserves, but the Agreement 

expressly gives Tricor the ultimate responsibility for developing the most of the components

2 Contract interpretation is a matter of law. St. Marys v. Auglaize Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 875 N.E.2d 561, 

568 (Ohio 2007).

Case: 2:18-cv-00735-EAS-CMV Doc #: 128 Filed: 07/29/21 Page: 11 of 27 PAGEID #: 5076
12

comprising the “Dealer Cost”—including the “Reserves”—while PDS is only responsible for 

setting “Administration Fees”:

“[Tricor] shall be assisted by PDS in co-ordinating Programs with [Tricor’s Insurer] 

and shall be responsible for development of all PROGRAMS including Program 

Contracts, underwriting and eligibility guidelines, Premium, Reserves, any third 

party fees and commissions. These amounts plus the Administration Fees set by 

PDS shall comprise the Dealer Cost.”

(Id. at 6 (emphasis added).) That the parties agreed to make Tricor responsible for setting the 

Reserves while expressly making PDS responsible for setting a different component of the Dealer 

Cost undercuts any claim that Tricor does not have ownership of the Reserves. Furthermore, 

“Additional Reserves”—which are “reserves above the Base Reserves”—are “to be determined by 

[Tricor] and/or [Tricor’s Insurer] . . . .” (Id. at 4 (emphasis added).) This definition expressly 

grants Tricor the responsibility for establishing “Additional Reserves”—consistent with the 

agreement that “[Tricor] . . . shall be responsible for development of all PROGRAMS including 

. . . Reserves[.]” (Id. at 6.) 

Other undisputed pieces of evidence confirm Tricor’s ultimate ownership and control over 

the Reserves. First, Tricor has had control over the Reserves in its relationship with “various 

administrators” since 1987. (Prelim. In. Hr’g Tr. 183:18–22.) Second, Tricor—as the obligor—

and its insurer bear the risks affiliated with the Reserves. Because the obligor in any Service 

Contract must support its Reserves, the obligor carries the risk. (Id. at 132:8–11, 183:18–184:1.)

On the other hand, while PDS’s profits depend on aiding the obligor in optimizing its Reserves, 

PDS did not directly bear financial risk for the Reserves’ accuracy as did Tricor. Third, Tricor 

listed the Reserves as equity in its accounting records. (Id. at 144:2–12.) As the Court concluded

in denying PDS’s motion for a preliminary injunction: this one-sided comparison of undisputed 

Case: 2:18-cv-00735-EAS-CMV Doc #: 128 Filed: 07/29/21 Page: 12 of 27 PAGEID #: 5077
13

evidence illustrates that Tricor has ownership of the Reserves. The Reserves are therefore not, as 

a matter of law, PDS’s to protect.

Following discovery in this case, PDS’s evidence is insufficient to demonstrate a genuine 

dispute of fact to survive Allegiance’s motion for summary judgment on this claim. PDS 

characterizes the Reserves as the “fruits” of its proprietary Rating Process, making the Reserves a 

protectable trade secret. (Pl.’s Mot. at 10.) However, even assuming that PDS has some 

possessory interest in the Reserves created using its proprietary Rating Process, there is no genuine 

dispute that Tricor had ultimate ownership of the Reserves. The 2014 Agreement expressly states 

that “[Tricor] desires PDS to provide analysis and support for pricing adjustments as well as aid 

in designing Program Contracts from time to time[.]” (2014 Agreement at 2 (emphasis added).) 

In other words, per the Agreement, the numbers PDS produced as a result of its Rating Process 

were ultimately for Tricor’s use. And Tricor never acquired—and thus did not provide to 

Allegiance—PDS’s proprietary Rating Process. Therefore, even if PDS could establish that it was 

entitled to assert some level of trade-secret protection over the Reserves outside of the Tricor-PDS 

relationship, Allegiance could not have used those Reserves “without authorization” because it is 

undisputed that Tricor authorized Allegiance to use that data. Frye, 77 F. App’x at 782.

PDS also cites to deposition testimony of Allegiance witnesses that it contends is 

inconsistent from the testimony of those witnesses during the preliminary injunction hearing. 

(Pl.’s Resp. in Opp’n at 10–14.) This evidence, however, pertains to Allegiance’s conduct in 

making slight changes to Reserves after it received that information from Tricor, which PDS 

contends illustrates Allegiance’s “guilty conscience.” (See id.) This evidence does not create a 

genuine dispute as to the ownership of the Tricor-PDS Reserves or whether Allegiance was legally 

authorized to use those Reserves.

Case: 2:18-cv-00735-EAS-CMV Doc #: 128 Filed: 07/29/21 Page: 13 of 27 PAGEID #: 5078
14

Lastly, PDS argues that the 2011 Marketing Agreement between Tricor and PDS 

establishes PDS’s ownership over the information Tricor sent to Allegiance. (Pl.’s Reply at 6–8, 

ECF No. 113.) That Agreement specified that all “forms, records and supplies including, but not 

limited to insurance forms and rate charts, provided by [PDS], are and will remain the property of 

[PDS.]” (Marketing Agreement at 5, ECF No. 46-4.) PDS argues that “rate charts” (as used in 

the Marketing Agreement) were included in the “business information” that went from PDS to 

Tricor (under the 2014 Agreement) and that Allegiance therefore misappropriated PDS’s 

proprietary information. (Pl.’s Reply at 6–8.) PDS’s misappropriation claim, however, is about 

Allegiance’s alleged misappropriation of the Reserves. (Pl.’s Mot. at 10.) “Reserves”—a technical 

term in the industry and a defined term in the 2014 Agreement—is not mentioned at all in the 

Marketing Agreement. See Foster Wheeler Enviresponse, Inc. v. Franklin County Convention 

Facilities Authority, 678 N.E.2d 519, 526 (Ohio 1997) (when interpreting a contract, “[t]echnical 

terms will be given their technical meaning, unless a different intention is clearly expressed.”). 

The Marketing Agreement has nothing to do with the parties’ rights and obligations regarding the 

Reserves or the administration of Service Contracts. (Compare 2014 Agreement, ECF No. 46-1 

with Marketing Agreement, ECF No. 46-4.) The plain meaning and context of the term “rate 

charts” in the Marketing Agreement do not show that the parties intended to give PDS a proprietary 

interest in Tricor’s Reserves.

Accordingly, the undisputed evidence establishes that Tricor owned the Reserves 

developed in the Tricor-PDS relationship. Thus, PDS’s claim for misappropriation of trade secrets 

fails as a matter of law. The Court therefore grants Allegiance’s motion for summary judgment 

and denies PDS’s motion for summary judgment as to PDS’s misappropriation claim.

Case: 2:18-cv-00735-EAS-CMV Doc #: 128 Filed: 07/29/21 Page: 14 of 27 PAGEID #: 5079
15

B. Copyright Infringement 

The parties next move for summary judgment on PDS’s claim for copyright infringement. 

(Pl.’s Mot. at 14; Defs.’ Mot. at 21.) “The Copyright Act provides protection for original works 

of authorship expressed in various media.” Stromback v. New Line Cinema, 384 F.3d 283, 293 

(6th Cir. 2004) (citing 17 U.S.C. §§ 101–1332)). Relevant here, the owner of a copyright has 

exclusive rights to “reproduce the copyrighted work” and to “prepare derivative works.” Id. (citing 

17 U.S.C. § 106)). To succeed on a claim for copyright infringement, a plaintiff must prove: (1) 

ownership of a valid copyright; and (2) that the defendant copied it. Kohus v. Mariol, 328 F.3d 

848, 853 (6th Cir. 2003). PDS is entitled to summary judgment because PDS owned a valid 

copyright and it is undisputed that Allegiance copied it.

1. PDS owns a valid copyright.

The first prong—ownership of a valid copyright—“tests the originality and nonfunctionality of the work, both of which are presumptively established by the copyright 

registration.” Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 387 F.3d 522, 534 (6th Cir. 

2004) (internal citation omitted). The “threshold showing of originality is not a demanding one.” 

Id. (citing Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 345, (1991) (“the requisite 

level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice.”)). “Original . . . means only 

that the work was independently created by the author (as opposed to copied from other works), 

and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity . . . even if the work is not a ‘novel’

one.” Id. (citing Feist, 499 U.S. at 345–46) (internal quotations omitted). The vast majority of

works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, no matter how crude, 

humble or obvious it might be.” Feist, 499 U.S. at 345 (internal quotations and citation omitted).

Case: 2:18-cv-00735-EAS-CMV Doc #: 128 Filed: 07/29/21 Page: 15 of 27 PAGEID #: 5080
16

PDS has established the presumptive validity of its copyright by providing a certificate of 

registration made “within five years after the first publication” of its U.S. LPLP Certificate. 

(Copyright TX7-741-273.) Because PDS produced its copyright registration, the burden shifts to 

Allegiance to rebut the copyright’s presumptive validity. Hi-Tech Video Prods., Inc. v. Cap. 

Cities/ABC, Inc., 58 F.3d 1093, 1095 (6th Cir. 1995).

Allegiance challenges the originality of PDS’s copyright. It argues that PDS’s copyrighted 

U.S. LPLP Certificate is not sufficiently original to warrant copyright protection.3 (Defs.’ Mot. at 

32.) Allegiance argues that (1) the “fill-in-the-blank portions of the forms at issue are not 

copyrightable because they are not original”; and (2) that the text of the LPLP Certificate was 

“dictated by third-parties, such as insurers, or were required by legal compliance measurers[,]” and 

are thus non-protectable under the “scenes à faire” doctrine. (Defs.’ Mot. at 32–35.)

a. The copyrighted LPLP Certificate is not a generic fill-in-the blank form.

Allegiance relies on M. M. Bus. Forms Corp. v. Uarco, Inc., 472 F.2d 1137 (6th Cir. 1973),

which held that “forms, including blank forms, which are intended to be used for recording facts 

are not the proper subjects of copyright.” Id. at 1139. Allegiance also relies on Tastefully Simple, 

Inc. v. Two Sisters Gourmet, L.L.C., 134 F. App’x 1, 4 (6th Cir. 2005), which held that a food 

company’s “100% Satisfaction, Customer Order, and Product Return/Claim forms” were not 

copyrightable because they were nothing more than a “convenient matrix to record information” 

that the company required “when a consultant returns a product.” Id. Indeed, “[b]lank forms, such 

as time cards, graph paper, account books, diaries, bank checks, scorecards, address books, report 

3 Allegiance argues both that PDS’s LPLP Certificate is not a “protectable work” under copyright 

law but also cites to caselaw concerning the second prong—whether Allegiance copied “constituent 

elements of the work that are original.” (Defs.’ Mot. at 32.) Ultimately, Allegiance argues that no portion 

of the LPLP Certificate is copyrightable; thus, the Court will analyze Allegiance’s arguments under the first 

element of the two copyright infringement elements. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00735-EAS-CMV Doc #: 128 Filed: 07/29/21 Page: 16 of 27 PAGEID #: 5081
17

forms, order forms and the like, which are designed for recording information and do not in 

themselves convey information” are not subject to copyright protection. 37 C.F.R. § 202.1. 

“[W]hether a form is a ‘blank form,’ and therefore not entitled to copyright protection, is a question 

of law for the court to decide.” Tastefully Simple, 134 F. App’x at 4.

Here, the copyrighted LPLP Form is not simply a “blank form” designed for recording 

information” that does not in itself “convey information[.]” Id. The form contains nine different 

sections. (Copyright TX7-741-273.) The first three sections—which cover roughly 25% of the 

first page of the two-page form—are blank boxes designed for the collecting of customer 

information, dealer information, and vehicle and certification information. (Id.) But the remaining 

six sections convey an abundance of information about the Lifetime Powertrain Program. (Id.) 

Thus, the copyrighted LPLP Certificate is not like the form at issue Tastefully Simple—it is much 

more than a “convenient matrix to record information[.]” Tastefully Simple, 134 F. App’x at 4. 

The fact that a portion of the LPLP Certificate is designed for collecting information does 

not render the entire document not subject to copyright protection. Indeed, the copyright 

registration extends only to the author-created “text.” (Copyright TX7-741-273.) PDS 

acknowledges that its “copyright claims are directed solely to the information conveying text found 

in the LPLP Certificate and do not extend to un-protectable elements such as the blank areas

seeking information, the general layout, or the general idea of providing repair coverage as a 

customer incentive.” (Pl.’s Resp. in Opp’n at 23, ECF No. 108.)

b. The information in the LPLP Certificate does not fall under the scenes à 

faire doctrine.

Allegiance next argues that language in the LPLP Certificate is not protectable under the 

“scenes à faire” doctrine. (Defs.’ Mot. at 34.) In the context of literature, this doctrine “excludes 

copyright protection for ‘incidents, characters or settings which are as a practical matter 

Case: 2:18-cv-00735-EAS-CMV Doc #: 128 Filed: 07/29/21 Page: 17 of 27 PAGEID #: 5082
18

indispensable, or at least standard, in the treatment of a given topic.’” Stromback, 384 F.3d at 296 

(citation omitted). For example, as the court in Stromback explained, “parties, alcohol,” and “wild 

behavior” are “natural elements in a story about a college fraternity.” Id. Such “common themes 

and ideas throughout literature and are beyond any level of abstraction at which copyright 

protection might begin to attach.” Id. The “scenes à faire” doctrine has also been applied in the 

computer software context. Lexmark Int’l, 387 F.3d at 535. In that industry, “elements of a 

program dictated by practical realities—e.g., by hardware standards and mechanical specifications, 

software standards and compatibility requirements, computer manufacturer design standards, 

target industry practices, and standard computer programming practices—may not obtain 

protection.” Id.

Allegiance, analogizing the insurance industry to the literature and software contexts,

argues that the doctrine of “scenes à faire” applies here because the details in the copyrighted LPLP 

Certificate “necessarily follow from the common requirements of insurance companies throughout 

the extended warranty industry.” (Defs.’ Mot.) In support of this argument, Allegiance cites

PDS’s president’s testimony that “an insurer would always review and modify the textual terms 

and conditions, and have final approval of the language.” (Id. (citing Greenweller Dep. 24:21–

25:22).) But this statement was in response to a question about the general requirements for 

“vehicle service contracts” at Great American Insurance (the owner of PDS) in the early 2000s. 

(See Greenweller Dep. 22:23–25:22.) Greenweller’s testimony did not pertain to the copyrighted 

LPLP Certificate, which is different than a vehicle service contract. (Id. at 61:9–15; Copyright

TX7-741-273 (“This Loyalty Certificate is not a product warranty nor is it a service contract.”).) 

Allegiance has not pointed to evidence that the copyrighted language in PDS’s LPLP 

Certificate follow from the “requirements of insurance companies” that are so commonplace that 

Case: 2:18-cv-00735-EAS-CMV Doc #: 128 Filed: 07/29/21 Page: 18 of 27 PAGEID #: 5083
19

the certificate is not copyrightable as an original work. The language in the LPLP Certificate 

might seem dull or boilerplate, but all that’s necessary for copyright protection is some “minimal 

degree of creativity”—and the language need not be “novel.” Feist, 499 U.S. at 345–46. PDS is 

also not asserting copyright protection over the general idea of providing repair coverage as a 

customer incentive”—but is instead asserting protection over the specific construction of language 

in its LPLP Certificate. (Pl.’s Resp. at 23.) The “scenes a faire” doctrine therefore does not 

invalidate PDS’s copyright. 

In sum, Allegiance fails to rebut PDS’s presumptively valid copyright. The analysis of 

PDS’s infringement claim therefore proceeds to the second element.

2. Allegiance copied original portions of PDS’s copyrighted LPLP Certificate

The second prong—copying by the defendant—“tests whether any copying occurred (a 

factual matter) and whether the portions of the work copied were entitled to copyright protection 

(a legal matter).” Lexmark Int’l, 387 F.3d at 534.

a. Whether copying occurred

“A plaintiff may demonstrate that original elements of its work were copied through direct 

or indirect evidence.” Enchant Christmas Light Maze & Mkt. Ltd. v. Glowco, LLC, 958 F.3d 532, 

536 (6th Cir. 2020). This case is one of the “rare” cases with direct evidence of copying. See id. 

It is undisputed that Ms. DeFouw, an Allegiance employee, copied the new Tricor LPLP 

Certificates directly from the Canadian LPLP Certificates that PDS made for Tricor. (DeFouw 

Dep. 19:11–22:12.) Tricor provided Allegiance with a PDF of the Canadian LPLP Certificate it 

received from PDS; DeFouw then used those PDFs to make changes requested by Tricor and sent

the new Tricor LPLP Certificates back to Tricor. (Id., Ex. 37.) Thus, this claim turns on the legal 

Case: 2:18-cv-00735-EAS-CMV Doc #: 128 Filed: 07/29/21 Page: 19 of 27 PAGEID #: 5084
20

question of “whether the portions of the work copied were entitled to copyright protection[.]” 

Lexmark Int’l, 387 F.3d at 534.

b. Whether the copied portions are entitled to copyright protection

Allegiance argues that the Canadian LPLP Certificate (from which it created the new Tricor 

LPLP Certificate) is not entitled to copyright protection for several reasons. Specifically, it first 

argues that the Canadian LPLP Certificate is not copyrighted in the U.S. or Canada and thus 

copying from the Canadian LPLP Certificate is not an infringement. (Defs.’ Mot. at 27.) Second, 

it argues PDS has no exclusive ownership in the Canadian LPLP Certificate that it provided to 

Tricor and that it therefore cannot base its infringement claim on Allegiance’s copying of the 

Canadian LPLP Certificate. (Id. at 30.) Third, it argues that the new Tricor LPLP Certificates

copied from the Tricor-PDS’s Canadian LPLP Certificate is not a derivative of PDS’s copyrighted 

U.S. LPLP Certificate. (Id. at 31.) 

None of Allegiance’s arguments is persuasive. It is undisputed that PDS owned a valid 

copyright, that its Canadian LPLP Certificate was a derivative of the copyrighted U.S. LPLP 

Certificate, and that Allegiance copied the “new” Tricor LPLP Certificates in the United States

directly from the derivative Canadian LPLP certificate. And, as discussed above when analyzing 

the validity of PDS’s copyright, the copied language meets the low threshold for originality 

required for copyright protection.

The owner of a copyright has exclusive rights to “reproduce the copyrighted work in 

copies” and to “prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C. § 106(1)–

(2). A “derivative work” is “a work based upon one or more preexisting works” that is “recast, 

transformed, or adapted” from the preexisting work. Id. § 101. The right to prepare derivative 

works includes to right to authorize others to produce a derivative work. See Stewart v. Abend, 

Case: 2:18-cv-00735-EAS-CMV Doc #: 128 Filed: 07/29/21 Page: 20 of 27 PAGEID #: 5085
21

495 U.S. 207, 221 (1990). And when an authorized author creates a derivative work, the preexisting elements of the derivative work remain subject to the original copyright. See id. at 223; 

17 U.S.C. § 103(b) (“The copyright in a . . . derivative work extends only to the material 

contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed 

in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material.”)

Courts to consider the issue have uniformly recognized that “if a third party copies a 

derivative work without authorization, it infringes the original copyright owner’s copyright in the 

underlying work to the extent the unauthorized copy of the derivative work also copies the 

underlying work.” DC Comics v. Towle, 802 F.3d 1012, 1023 (9th Cir. 2015); see also

Montgomery v. Noga, 168 F.3d 1282, 1293 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting 1 Nimmer § 3.05, at 3–34.20) 

(“the better view is that if the material copied was derived from a copyrighted underlying work, 

this will constitute an infringement of such work regardless of whether the defendant copied 

directly from the underlying work, or indirectly via the derivative work”); Lennar Homes of Texas 

Sales & Mktg., Ltd. v. Perry Homes, LLC, 117 F. Supp. 3d 913, 929 (S.D. Tex. 2015) (“even if 

the infringer copies underlying material only from the derivative work, the copyright owner of the 

underlying material has a cause of action against the infringer.”). 

Here, it is undisputed that the Canadian LPLP Certificate is a derivative work of PDS’s

copyrighted U.S. LPLP Certificate. (Greenweller Dep. 61:16–62:1.) And it undisputed that 

Allegiance created the new Tricor LPLP Certificate nearly verbatim from the derivative Canadian 

LPLP Certificate (which was itself taken verbatim from the copyrighted U.S. LPLP Certificate).

(DeFouw Dep., Ex. 37; Greenweller Dep. 61:16–62:1.) Even drawing the inference in 

Allegiance’s favor that Tricor shared ownership in the derivative Canadian LPLP Certificate

through its 2011 or 2014 contracts with PDS, the elements of the Canadian LPLP Certificate 

Case: 2:18-cv-00735-EAS-CMV Doc #: 128 Filed: 07/29/21 Page: 21 of 27 PAGEID #: 5086
22

derived from the copyrighted U.S. LPLP Certificate remain protected under PDS’s valid copyright. 

See Stewart, 495 U.S. at 221–23. And it is immaterial that the Canadian LPLP Certificate was not 

itself copyrighted because it is undisputed that it was a derivative work of a work subject to 

copyright protection. See Towle, 802 F.3d at 1023; Lennar Homes, 117 F. Supp. 3d at 929. To be 

sure, as discussed above, PDS’s copyright does not extend to the blank, information-collecting 

boxes on the LPLP Certificate; it does extend to the text of the new Tricor LPLP Certificates 

copied from the derivative Canadian LPLP Certificate.

Furthermore, the fact that Allegiance copied the Canadian LPLP Certificate for use in 

Canada does not render its acts outside the reach of the Copyright Act. While it is true that “United 

States copyright laws do not have extraterritorial effect,” Subafilms, Ltd. v. MGM-Pathe 

Commcationns Co., 24 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 1994), it is undisputed that Allegiance, without 

authorization from PDS, reproduced and copied the derivative Canadian LPLP Certificate in Ohio. 

(DeFouw Dep. 11:25–22:12.) These acts infringed on PDS’s exclusive rights to “reproduce the 

copyrighted wok” and to “prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work[.]” 17 U.S.C. 

§ 106(1)–(2). Allegiance also committed an act of infringement by exporting infringing copies of 

the new Tricor LPLP Certificates for use in Canada. 17 U.S.C. § 602(a)(2).4

Accordingly, PDS is entitled to summary judgment on its copyright infringement claim 

against Allegiance as to Allegiance’s liability. PDS has not moved for summary judgment on the 

issue of damages. Thus, damages on PDS’s infringement claim will be left for trial.

4 “. . . exportation from the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of 

copies or phonorecords, the making of which either constituted an infringement of copyright, or which would have 

constituted an infringement of copyright if this title had been applicable, is an infringement of the exclusive right to 

distribute copies or phonorecords under section 106, actionable under sections 501 and 506.” 17 U.S.C. § 602(a)(2).

Case: 2:18-cv-00735-EAS-CMV Doc #: 128 Filed: 07/29/21 Page: 22 of 27 PAGEID #: 5087
23

C. Allegiance’s Counterclaims for Tortious Interference and Unfair Competition

Next, PDS moves for summary judgment on Allegiance’s counterclaims for tortious 

interference with contract and business relationships, common law unfair competition, and 

declaratory judgment that PDS does not have a protectable copyright interest regarding the new 

Tricor LPLP Certificates. (Pl.’s Mot. at 18; Counterclaim ¶¶ 2–48.) PDS is entitled to summary 

judgment on each of Allegiance’s counterclaims.

1. Tortious Interference

In Ohio, the elements of “elements of tortious interference with contract are (1) the

existence of a contract, (2) the wrongdoer’s knowledge of the contract, (3) the wrongdoer’s 

intentional procurement of the contract’s breach, (4) lack of justification, and (5) resulting 

damages.” Fred Siegel Co, 707 N.E.2d at 858. Similarly, the elements of tortious interference 

with a business relationship are “(1) a business relationship, (2) the wrongdoer’s knowledge 

thereof, (3) an intentional interference causing a breach or termination of the relationship, and (4) 

damages resulting therefrom.” Geo-Pro Serv., Inc. v. Solar Testing Lab’ys, Inc., 763 N.E.2d 664, 

672 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001) (citation omitted).

PDS argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because “[n]o court in Ohio has held 

that a lawsuit constituted a basis for a tortious business interference claim by the defendant in the 

action.” (Pl.’s Mot. at 19.) Allegiance responds that its claim for tortious interference does not 

relate solely to the lawsuit, but also its allegation that PDS “rapidly cut off Tricor dealers from 

accessing Premier’s system after Tricor went into business with Allegiance—even though system 

access was a necessity for Tricor dealers to handle their legal obligations to consumers.” (Def.’s 

Resp. in Opp’n, at 18, ECF No. 109 (citing Counterclaim ¶ 22).)

Case: 2:18-cv-00735-EAS-CMV Doc #: 128 Filed: 07/29/21 Page: 23 of 27 PAGEID #: 5088
24

PDS is entitled to summary judgment because Allegiance’s evidence, taken as true, cannot 

satisfy the elements of either tortious interference with contract or tortious interference with 

business relationships. Allegiance points to no evidence in the record that PDS procured a breach 

of contract by Tricor, Fred Siegel Co., 707 N.E.2d at 858, or that PDS’s actions caused a breach 

or termination of Tricor’s relationship with Allegiance, Geo-Pro Serv., 763 N.E.2d at 672. Thus, 

there is no genuine dispute on whether PDS’s acts tortiously interfered with the contract or 

business relationship between Allegiance and Tricor.

2. Unfair Competition

PDS argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on Allegiance’s unfair competition 

claim because this Court has held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 preempts Ohio common

law tort claims for unfair competition. (Pl.’s Mot. at 19.) Allegiance alleges in its counterclaim 

that:

• “Premier filed the present litigation for purposes of retaliating against Allegiance 

and Tricor for entering into the Servicing Agreement.”

• “This litigation is not founded in good faith, and was instituted with the intent and 

purpose of harassing and injuring Allegiance.”

• “Premier commenced this litigation with a malicious purpose—to injure Allegiance 

and Tricor.”

• “Premier did not bring this litigation honestly and in good faith.”

• Premier “commenced and prosecuted this litigation to harass, annoy, intimidate, 

financially harm, or gain an unfair advantage over Allegiance. Such conduct 

constitutes unfair competition under the common law of the State of Ohio.”

• “Premier’s lawsuit against Allegiance is objectively baseless.”

Case: 2:18-cv-00735-EAS-CMV Doc #: 128 Filed: 07/29/21 Page: 24 of 27 PAGEID #: 5089
25

(Counterclaim ¶¶ 29–32.) PDS is correct—Allegiance’s counterclaim is the exact type of Ohio 

common law unfair competition claim that this Court has held is preempted by Rule 11. See, e.g.,

Cheryl & Co. v. Krueger, No. 2:18-CV-01485, 2020 WL 5423885, at *6 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 10, 

2020). 

A federal law may preempt a state law when “there is an actual conflict between a federal 

and a state law.” Garcia v. Wyeth-Ayerst Lab’ys, 385 F.3d 961, 965 (6th Cir. 2004). When a party 

in federal court asserts a counterclaim for Ohio common law unfair competition based on 

allegations that a lawsuit against it was brought in bad faith or that the other party has made 

misrepresentations to the court, this Court has held that the unfair competition claim is preempted 

by Rule 11. Ashley Furniture Indus., Inc. v. Am. Signature, Inc., No. 2:11-CV-427, 2015 WL 

12999664, at *5 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 12, 2015). As the Court explained in Ashley Furniture:

“Value City’s unfair competition counterclaim consists largely of Ashley’s alleged 

misrepresentations to this Court. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 expressly 

governs the kind of representations Ashley made to the Court and provides for 

sanctions in the case of misrepresentations concerning claims or defenses. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 11(b)(2). Rule 11 also contains a safe harbor provision that allows a litigant 

to withdraw a representation within twenty-one days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1)(A). 

Ohio common law unfair competition does not contain such a safe harbor provision. 

It therefore directly conflicts with federal law and is preempted.

Ashley Furniture, 2015 WL 12999664, at *5 (First Bank of Marietta v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. 

Co., 307 F.3d 501, 529–30 (6th Cir. 2002)). 

The Ashley Furniture analysis is directly on point here. Allegiance’s unfair competition 

claim is premised on allegations that PDS did not bring this lawsuit in good faith and that the suit 

is objectively baseless. (Counterclaim ¶¶ 28–32.) Thus, for the same reasons as the Court 

described in Ashley Furniture, Allegiance’s counterclaim for Ohio common law unfair 

competition is preempted by Rule 11. PDS is therefore entitled to summary judgment 

Case: 2:18-cv-00735-EAS-CMV Doc #: 128 Filed: 07/29/21 Page: 25 of 27 PAGEID #: 5090
26

3. Declaratory Judgment

Because the Court granted summary judgment in favor of PDS on its copyright 

infringement claim, PDS is also entitled to summary judgment on Allegiance’s counterclaim for 

declaratory judgment whether PDS has a protectable copyright interest. Accordingly, PDS is 

entitled to summary judgment on each of Allegiance’s counterclaims.

IV. Motion to Strike

Allegiance filed a motion to strike several exhibits submitted by PDS in its summary 

judgment briefing. (Mot. to Strike, ECF No. 114.) Allegiance also moved to strike argument 

related to PDS’s copyright infringement claim that PDS raised in its reply brief, but Allegiance’s 

argument appears to be nothing more than a disguised surreply to PDS’s reply brief. (Id.) Because 

these exhibits and Allegiance’s improper surreply argument did not determine the outcome of the 

Court’s ruling on this matter, Allegiance’s Motion to Strike (ECF No. 34) will be denied as moot. 

See Hughes v. Lavender, No. 2:10-cv-674, 2011 WL 2945843, at *5 (S.D. Ohio July 20, 2011) 

(citing Pullom v. U.S. Bakery, 477 F. Supp. 2d 1093, 1109 (D. Or. 2007)).

V. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 100.) Specifically, the Court denies

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to its claim for misappropriation of trade secrets and 

grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim 

and as to Defendants’ counterclaims.

The Court also GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants’ Motion for 

Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 101.) Specifically, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion for 

Case: 2:18-cv-00735-EAS-CMV Doc #: 128 Filed: 07/29/21 Page: 26 of 27 PAGEID #: 5091
27

Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff’s claim for misappropriation of trade secrets and denies 

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim.

Defendants’ Motion to Strike is DENIED AS MOOT. (ECF No. 114.)

Finally, the Court also GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue. (ECF No. 126.) This 

case will proceed to trial on the issue of damages on Plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim. The 

parties shall comply with the Magistrate Judge’s order bifurcating damages discovery. (ECF No. 

83.) Trial is RESET for Monday, November 15, 2021 and a new trial schedule will issue 

forthwith. The Court will administratively stay this case during damages discovery. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7/29/2021 s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.

DATE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case: 2:18-cv-00735-EAS-CMV Doc #: 128 Filed: 07/29/21 Page: 27 of 27 PAGEID #: 5092