Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

XpandOrtho, Inc. v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.

XpandOrtho, Inc. v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.

United States District Court for the Southern District of California

March 15, 2022, Decided; March 15, 2022, Filed

Case No.: 3:21-cv-00105-BEN-KSC

Opinion

ORDER:

(1) DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS IS DENIED;

(2) DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE IN PART PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT IS DENIED;

(3) DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IS DENIED;

(4) PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' EXHIBITS 2 THROUGH 4 IS DENIED, BUT PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO DISREGARD THE EXHIBITS IS GRANTED; AND

(5) THE PARTIES' MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL ARE GRANTED.

[ECF Nos. 44, 46, 48, 49, 51, 56]

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs XpandOrtho, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("XpandOrtho"), and Exactech, Inc., a Florida corporation ("Exactech") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") bring this action against Defendants Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Zimmer, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Zimmer US, Inc., a Delaware corporation doing [*2]  business as Zimmer Biomet Southern California; and ORTHOsoft ULC, a Canadian corporation doing business as Zimmer CAS (collectively, "Defendants") for alleged misuse of confidential information, fraud, unfair competition, breach of contract, and copyright infringement. First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 34 ("FAC") at 3, ¶ 1.

Before the Court are the following motions: (1) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the FAC, ECF No. 44; (2) Defendants' Motion to Strike In Part the FAC, ECF No. 44; (3) Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice, ECF No. 44-1; (4) Plaintiffs request to strike or alternatively, disregard Exhibits 2 through 4 to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 48 at 15; (5) Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Certain Exhibits and Text Supporting their Motion to Dismiss and Strike Under Seal, ECF Nos. 46 and 56; and (6) Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Portions of Their Opposition Under Seal, ECF No. 51.

The motions were submitted on the papers without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) and Rule 78(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 58. After considering the papers submitted, supporting documentation, and applicable law, the Court (1) DENIES Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; (2) DENIES Defendants' Motion to Strike; (3) [*3]  DENIES Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice; (4) DENIES Plaintiffs' request to strike Exhibits 2 through 4; (5) GRANTS Plaintiffs' request to disregard Exhibits 2 through 4; and (6) GRANTS all Motions to file documents under seal.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46698 *; 2022 WL 801743

XPANDORTHO, INC., a Delaware corporation; EXACTECH, INC., a Florida corporation, Plaintiffs, v. ZIMMER BIOMET HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation; ZIMMER, INC., a Delaware corporation; ZIMMER U.S., INC., a Delaware corporation doing business as ZIMMER BIOMET SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA; ORTHOSOFT ULC, a Canadian corporation doing business as ZIMMER CAS, Defendants.

Prior History: XpandOrtho, Inc. v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71347 (S.D. Cal., Apr. 13, 2021)

CORE TERMS

Plaintiffs', trade secret, allegations, Exhibits, motion to dismiss, seal, misappropriation, acquisition, REDACTED, judicial notice, documents, technology, confidential information, confidential, negotiations, intentional interference, patent application, portions, DENIES, prospective economic advantage, fair use, motion to strike, images, copyright infringement, preemption, knee, factual dispute, misrepresentations, acquire, testing

Civil Procedure, Defenses, Demurrers & Objections, Motions to Dismiss, Failure to State Claim, Pleadings, Complaints, Requirements for Complaint, Torts, Prospective Advantage, Intentional Interference, Elements, Antitrust & Trade Law, Trade Practices & Unfair Competition, State Regulation, Scope, Consumer Protection, Deceptive & Unfair Trade Practices, State Regulation, Deceptive Labeling & Packaging, Monopolies & Monopolization, Conspiracy to Monopolize, Heightened Pleading Requirements, Fraud Claims, Trade Secrets Law, Misappropriation Actions, Elements of Misappropriation, Acquisition, Confidentiality, Civil Actions, Burdens of Proof, Existence & Ownership, Disclosures, Labor & Employment Law, Conditions & Terms, Trade Secrets & Unfair Competition, Trade Secrets, Discovery, Business & Corporate Compliance, Breach, Breach of Contract Actions, Elements of Contract Claims, Copyright Law, Copyright Infringement Actions, Civil Infringement Actions, Elements, Ownership, Securities Law, RICO Actions, Heightened Pleading Requirements, Mistake, Federal Versus State Law, Common Law, Defenses, Statute of Limitations, Contracts Law, Contract Conditions & Provisions, Forum Selection Clauses, Venue, Federal Venue Transfers, Convenience Transfers, Preliminary Considerations, Forum Non Conveniens, Governments, Courts, Rule Application & Interpretation, Evidence, Privileges, Trade Secrets, Questions of Fact, Fair Use, Fair Use Determination, Factors, Scope of Copyright Protection, Publication, Copyright Act of 1976, Ownership Rights, Reproductions, Limitations, Judicial Notice, Adjudicative Facts, Facts Generally Known, Verifiable Facts, Judicial Records, Motions to Strike, Immaterial Matters, Irrelevant Matters, Scandalous Matters, Redundant Matters, Appeals, Standards of Review, Abuse of Discretion, Judicial Officers, Judges, Discretionary Powers, Summary Judgment, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Materiality of Facts, Court Records