By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Colm F. Connolly in CareDx, Inc. v. Natera, Inc., Civil Action No. 19-662-CFC (D.Del. January 24, 2020), the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke recommending that Judge Connolly deny in part and grant part Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. Defendant filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations that Judge Connolly deny the motion to dismiss with respect to Counts One and Three of Plaintiff’s complaint. Id. at *1. Count One purports to allege false advertising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) and Count Three purports to allege unfair competition. Id.
Defendant made two objections in response to the recommendation to deny the motion to dismiss with respect to Count One. First, Defendant asserted that the Magistrate Judge made an error in concluding that the allegations of potential future harm are sufficient to establish the proximate cause element of the Lanham Act claim. Id. at *2. Second, Defendant asserted that the Magistrate Judge made an error in concluding that the complaint “alleges facts that would show that the at-issue statements are false and misleading.” Id. Upon review and evaluation, Judge Connolly was not persuaded by any of Defendant’s arguments that the Magistrate Judge erred in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss Count I. Id. at *2-5.
With respect to Count Three, Defendant asserted that the Magistrate Judge made an error in not dismissing the unfair competition claim “because the [c]omplaint failed to allege with sufficient particularity ‘a reasonable expectation of entering a valid business relationship, with which the defendant wrongly interferes, and thereby defeats plaintiff’s legitimate expectancy and causes him harm.’” Id. at *5. Upon review and evaluation, Judge Connolly agreed with the Magistrate Judge that the allegations in Count Three of the complaint provided adequate notice to Defendant of the unfair competition claim even though those allegations “could have been more factually robust.” Id.
Accordingly, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss with respect to Counts One and Three of the complaint.
A copy of the Memorandum Order is attached.