• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
REDBOX AUTOMATED RETAIL, LLC,Plaintiff,vs.TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX HOMEENTERTAINMENT, LLC,Defendant.)))))))))))))Civil Action No. 09-592-RBK
TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX HOME ENTERTAINMENT LLC’S OPENING BRIEFIN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS REDBOX’S COMPLAINT PURSUANTTO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(B)(6)
OF COUNSEL:Yosef Riemer (
 pro hac vice pending
)KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP601 Lexington AvenueNew York City, NY 10022Tel: (212) 446-4802Email:yosef.riemer@kirkland.com Corey C. Watson (
 pro hac vice pending
)KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP777 South Figueroa StreetLos Angeles, CA 90017Tel: (213) 680-8482Email:corey.watson@kirkland.com Beth Moskow-Schnoll (No. 2900)BALLARD SPAHR LLP919 North Market Street, 12th FloorWilmington, DE 19801Tel: (302) 252-4447Fax: (302) 355-0221Email:moskowb@ballardspahr.com Neal WaltersBALLARD SPAHR LLPPlaza 1000 - Suite 500Main StreetVoorhees, NJ 08043Tel: (856) 761-3438Email:waltersn@ballardspahr.com
  Attorneys for Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment LLC 
 Dated: October 1, 2009
 
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS......................................................................1INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.......................................................................................................3SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS..................................................................................................4ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................................6I. Redbox Fails to State a Claim Under Section 1 of the Sherman Act..................................8A. Redbox Has Not Pled a “Contract, Combination . . . or Conspiracy” UnderSection 1...................................................................................................................8B. Redbox Cannot Plead an Unlawful “Restraint of Trade.”.....................................121. Redbox Has Not, And Cannot, Plead That Fox’s DistributionPolicy Harms
 Inter-brand 
Competition for DVD Rentals.........................162. Redbox’s Allegations Of Injury to Itself and Injury to
 Intra-brand 
 Competition Do Not Satisfy the Requirement of Pleading Harm toCompetition................................................................................................18C. Redbox Asserts An Implausible Market Definition...............................................21II. Redbox’s Copyright Misuse Claim Fails Because Copyright Misuse is anAffirmative Defense, Not a Claim.....................................................................................27III. Redbox’s Tortious Interference Claim Fails Because Redbox Cannot Allege ThatIngram or VPD Breached Their Contract With Redbox....................................................28CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................30
 
 
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage No(s).Cases
 
 Alberta Gas Chems., Ltd 
.
 , v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co
.,826 F.2d 1235 (3d Cir. 1987)............................................................................................19
 Altera Corp. v. Clear Logic, Inc.
,424 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2005)..........................................................................................28
 Am. Airlines v. Christensen
,967 F.2d 410 (10th Cir. 1992)..........................................................................................10
 Arista Records v. Flea World, Inc
.,356 F. Supp. 2d 411 (D.N.J 2005)....................................................................................28
 Ashcroft v. Iqbal
,129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009)........................................................................................6, 7, 23, 24
 Associated Gen. Contractors v. Cal. State Counsel of Carpenters
,459 U.S. 519 (1983)..........................................................................................................20
 Bell Atl. v. Twombly
,550 U.S. 544 (2007)....................................................................................................6, 7, 8
 Bldg. Materials Corp. of Am. v. Rotter 
,535 F. Supp. 2d 518 (E.D. Pa. 2008)................................................................................26
 Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp
.,509 U.S. 209 (1993)..........................................................................................................19
 Brown Shoe Co. v. United States
,370 U.S. 294 (1962)..........................................................................................................19
 Brunson Commc’ns, Inc. v. Arbitron, Inc.
,239 F. Supp. 2d 550 (E.D. Pa. 2002)................................................................................26
Carell v. Shubert Org., Inc.
,104 F. Supp. 2d 236 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)...............................................................................22
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex rel. Zimmerman v. PepsiCo, Inc.
,836 F.2d 173 (3d Cir. 1988)................................................................................................8
Conley v. Gibson
,355 U.S. 41 (1957)..............................................................................................................7
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...