## Facts

- Laitram Machinery, Inc. manufactured shrimp-processing machinery and competed with Seafood Equipment Development Corp. (SEDCO).
- SEDCO claimed trade-secret rights (and held a patent) relating to shrimp-processing machine technology; Laitram developed and marketed its own machine.
- Laitram alleged SEDCO, Carnitech A/S, and Skrmetta Machinery Corp. coordinated to harm Laitram by:
  - sending customer communications accusing Laitram of misappropriating SEDCO’s trade secrets; and
  - pursuing a Florida trade-secret lawsuit alleged to be baseless and intended to harass and chill competition.
- Laitram contended the purported “trade secrets” were publicly disclosed in SEDCO’s patent, calling into question whether any protectable trade secrets existed.
- Evidence included an affidavit recounting a Skrmetta executive telling a Laitram executive, “We’ve got you now,” referring to the trade-secret dispute.
- Laitram asserted federal and state antitrust claims, Lanham Act false-advertising/unfair-competition claims, Louisiana unfair trade practices, defamation, and conspiracy-based claims, plus a declaratory-judgment claim relating to SEDCO’s patent.
- By the time of the ruling, Laitram had settled with SEDCO and Carnitech; Skrmetta remained as the moving defendant.

## Issues

1. Whether Skrmetta was entitled to summary judgment on antitrust claims based on Noerr-Pennington immunity for litigation-related petitioning activity, or whether the sham-litigation exception and conspiracy evidence created triable fact issues.
2. Whether genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment on Lanham Act, Louisiana unfair trade practices, defamation, and related conspiracy claims based on allegedly false customer communications.
3. Whether the declaratory-judgment claim concerning SEDCO’s patent could proceed against Skrmetta despite Skrmetta’s lack of legal interest in the patent.

## Decision

- Skrmetta’s motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part.
- Summary judgment was granted to Skrmetta on the patent-related declaratory-judgment claim because Skrmetta had no ownership or legal interest in SEDCO’s patent and there was no justiciable controversy between Laitram and Skrmetta on that subject.
- Summary judgment was denied on substantial portions of the antitrust and related conspiracy claims because evidence could support an inference of concerted conduct and could support application of the Noerr-Pennington sham exception.
- Summary judgment was denied on Lanham Act, Louisiana unfair trade practices, defamation, and related conspiracy claims because evidence could support findings that Skrmetta participated in disseminating false or misleading accusations to customers.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is improper where, viewing evidence in the nonmovant’s favor, genuine disputes of material fact exist on dispositive elements.
- Noerr-Pennington generally immunizes petitioning activity, including lawsuits, from antitrust liability.
- The sham-litigation exception may apply where the challenged lawsuit is objectively baseless and used as a tool of anticompetitive harm rather than a genuine effort to obtain relief.
- Evidence that alleged trade secrets were publicly disclosed can bear on whether trade-secret litigation had an objective basis and whether related statements were false or misleading.
- Claims for false advertising/unfair competition, unfair trade practices, and defamation may survive summary judgment where there is evidence the defendant participated in disseminating factually false or misleading statements to customers and material facts remain disputed.
- A declaratory-judgment claim requires a justiciable controversy; a defendant with no legal interest in the patent at issue may be entitled to dismissal.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the patent-related declaratory-judgment claim against Skrmetta for lack of a justiciable controversy, but allowed the antitrust, Lanham Act, unfair trade practices, defamation, and conspiracy-based claims to proceed because disputed facts existed regarding Skrmetta’s participation in coordinated conduct and whether the prior trade-secret litigation and customer accusations were protected petitioning activity or actionable sham-based and misleading conduct.


Laitram Mach., Inc. v. Carnitech A/S, 901 F. Supp. 1155 (E.D. La. 1995)