The borrowers were not judicially estopped from bringing an action challenging a foreclosure where the bankruptcy court did not rely on or accept their bankruptcy filings in dismissing their Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding. Although a state law claim alleging violations of the Home Affordable Modification Program was possible, the borrowers had failed to meet the Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 pleading standards.
Plaintiff patent holder filed a patent infringement action against defendant infringer. The infringer filed counterclaims based on federal antitrust laws and state antitrust and unfair competition laws. The infringer also asserted affirmative defenses. The patent holder filed a motion to dismiss certain counterclaims, to dismiss or strike the affirmative defenses, or alternatively, to stay the counterclaims and affirmative defenses. Parties’ litigation attorneys Los Angeles appeal.
The patent holder brought a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The court held that (1) the infringer’s counterclaim alleging a violation of federal antitrust law for initiation of an infringement action in bad faith was not an attempt to assert a Handgards claim; (2) the infringer’s allegation of a Walker Process claim, namely that the patent holder sought to enforce an invalid patent that the patent holder procured through fraud, was sufficient to allege that the patent holder’s infringement action was objectively baseless; (3) the infringer sufficiently alleged a tying or leverage claim in violation of federal antitrust laws because the infringer contended that the patent holder attempted to extend the monopoly to sales of other items that would have been used for non-infringing purposes; (4) the infringer’s claims of violation of state antitrust and unfair competition laws were not defeated because the claims arose from the same conduct underlying the federal antitrust claims.
The court denied the motion to dismiss the infringer’s counterclaim raising a violation of federal antitrust laws, a Walker Process claim, and violations of state laws. The court denied the motion to strike the affirmative defenses and denied the motion to stay the counterclaims and related affirmative defenses.