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
Case No. 19-cv-2520-LHK
CONTINENTAL’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
 
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON
 
LLP
A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations
STEPHEN S. KORNICZKY, Cal. Bar No. 135532 MARTIN R. BADER, Cal. Bar No. 222865 MATTHEW W. HOLDER, Cal. Bar No. 217619 12275 El Camino Real, Suite 200 San Diego, California 92130 Telephone: 858.720.8900 Facsimile: 858.509.3691 E mail skorniczky@sheppardmullin.com mbader@sheppardmullin.com mholder@sheppardmullin.com MICHAEL W. SCARBOROUGH, Cal. Bar No. 203524 MONA SOLOUKI, Cal. Bar No. 215145 LAI L. YIP, Cal Bar No. 258029 Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: 415.434.9100 Facsimile: 415.434.3947 E mail mscarborough@sheppardmullin.com msolouki@sheppardmullin.com lyip@sheppardmullin.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. AVANCI, LLC, a Delaware corporation, et al. Defendants. Case No. 19-cv-2520-LHK
PLAINTIFF CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, INC.
’
S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS
’
 MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Hearing Date: Nov. 21, 2019 Time: 1:30 p.m. Place: Courtroom 8 Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh
 
REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE FILED PARTIALLY UNDER SEAL
Case 5:19-cv-02520-LHK Document 182 Filed 10/04/19 Page 1 of 42
 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 i
Case No. 19-cv-2520-LHK 
 
CONTINENTAL’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
I.
 
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1
 
II.
 
CONTINENTAL EASILY SATISFIES ARTICLE III STANDING. ...................................1
 
A.
 
The Liberal Pleading Standard Favors Continental. ..................................................1
 
B.
 
Continental Has Alleged (and Can Show) the Requisite Harm. ................................2
 
III.
 
CONTINENTAL HAS ADEQUATELY PLED ITS ANTITRUST CLAIMS. ....................5
 
A.
 
Defendants’ Antitrust Standing Arguments Lack Merit
. ...........................................5
 
1.
 
Continental is not too remote to seek equitable relief under Section 16. ...................................................................................................................5
 
2.
 
As a direct victim of Defendants’ concerted boyco
tt, Continental is threatened with the type of injury the antitrust laws are intended to redress. ............................................................................................................7
 
B.
 
Continental Has Sufficiently Alleged Concerted Agreements Among the Defendants to Boycott Continental and Other Upstream Suppliers. ..........................8
 
1.
 
Continental has alleged an overarching conspiracy to boycott upstream suppliers like Continental. ..............................................................8
 
2.
 
 Neither Avanci’s status as a pool, nor the theoretical possibility of
individual licenses, is sufficient to immunize Defendants from liability. ........................................................................................................10
 
C.
 
Continental Has Sufficiently Pled a Section 2 Sherman Act Claim. .......................12
 
1.
 
FRAND violations of the type alleged here constitute antitrust violations. .....................................................................................................12
 
2.
 
Continental has alleged actionable exclusionary conduct under Section 2. ......................................................................................................15
 
D.
 
The Complaint Adequately Alleges a Conspiracy to Monopolize. ..........................17
 
E.
 
The Complaint Adequately Alleges Relevant Markets. ...........................................18
 
IV.
 
DEFENDANTS’ ATTACKS ON CONTINENTAL’S OTHER CLAIMS ALL
FAIL. ....................................................................................................................................20
 
A.
 
Continental Has Pled a Viable Promissory Estoppel Claim. ...................................20
 
B.
 
Continental Is Entitled to Seek Declaratory Relief. .................................................21
 
C.
 
Specific Performance Is an Obvious and Appropriate Remedy Here. .....................22
 
Case 5:19-cv-02520-LHK Document 182 Filed 10/04/19 Page 2 of 42
View on Scribd