SureShot Whiffs at 5th Circuit in Antitrust Case Against Topgolf
SureShot, a Texas-based company formed in 2014, had hopes of competing with Topgolf by opening a golf-focused sports bar entertainment facilities.
October 11, 2018 at 04:10 PM
4 minute read
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has rejected an antitrust action filed against Dallas-based Topgolf International alleging the company attempted to monopolize the golf entertainment center business when it purchased a 3-D ball-tracking system that analyzes the shots golfers take on driving ranges.
SureShot Golf Ventures v. Topgolf International pits Topgolf, which was founded in 2000 and operates golf entertainment centers in the United States and abroad, against SureShot, another Texas-based company formed in 2014 in hopes of competing with Topgolf by opening a golf-focused sports bar entertainment facilities.
To create competition with Topgolf, SureShot relied on ball-tracking technology from Protracer, a Swedish company that developed a three-dimensional gaming experience that allows golfers to track the flights of multiple balls in near real time on a television monitor, according to the court.
SureShot has a five-year licensing agreement with Protracer for the ball-tracking system, which expires in 2020. SureShot alleges that Topgolf used its position as a monopolist to acquire Protracer technology with the intent to foreclose the market to SureShot and other competitors.
After Topgolf's acquisition, SureShot sought assurances from Topgolf's executives that they could continue to access the ball-tracking system beyond the expiration of the licensing agreement. Topgolf refused to give such assurances, and allegedly one of its executives told SureShot, “If I was in your position, I would look for alternatives.”
SureShot then sued Topgolf in the U.S. District Court in Houston in 2017, asserting several antitrust claims, including conspiracy in trade and monopolization and attempted monopolization under the Sherman Act, and unlawful acquisition under the Clayton Act.
Topgolf sought to dismiss SureShot's complaint for failure to state a claim. Topgolf argued that SureShot's claims were not ripe for resolution because the company still had access to the ball-tracking system and SureShot did not adequately allege that Topgolf's acquisition was illegal or resulted in anti-competitive effects.
The trial court granted Topgolf's motion to dismiss, concluding that SureShot's claims were not ripe for consideration and that SureShot failed to plead antitrust injury sufficient to confer antitrust standing, decisions SureShot appealed to the Fifth Circuit.
In its recent decision, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, concluding that the antitrust claims against Topgolf are ambiguous and that SureShot's alleged injury is not “certainly impending.”
“The closest Topgolf came to denying future use of the Protracer technology was the statement of its unnamed top executive who advised SureShot to seek alternative ball-tracking technology in developing its business, which did not immediately terminate the SureShot/Protracer agreement,” the Fifth Circuit panel wrote in a per curiam opinion.
“SureShot's claims of market foreclosure stemming from the Topgolf/Protracer acquisition are similarly speculative. SureShot alleges that Topgolf's acquisition of the Protracer Range System would 'cut off the supply to SureShot of the unique, leading-edge Protracer technology,' give Topgolf control over licensing agreements, and authorize it to extend agreements to businesses interested in using the Protracer technology to open businesses other than golf entertainment facilities, thereby controlling prices and sending less qualified personnel for installation and service requests,” the Fifth Circuit wrote.
“However, all of the allegations SureShot identifies for us are phrased in future terms, and SureShot has not alleged that any of the federal antitrust violations have resulted in the above-referenced feared actions,” the Fifth Circuit concluded in the decision.
Ashley E. Johnson, of counsel in the Dallas office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, who represents Topgolf on appeal, did not return a call for comment.
Mo Taherzadeh, a Houston attorney who represents SureShot on appeal, also did not return a call for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFilm Company Alleges Elon Musk, Tesla Used AI to Mimic 'Blade Runner' Scene
6 minute readLive Nation Targeted in Lawsuit Over 2021 Music Festival Crowd Crush
Distributor Hopes Bootleggers 'Can't Get No Satisfaction' Selling Unauthorized Rolling Stones Merch
2 minute readFormer Bumble Legal Chief Takes CLO Posts at 2 NYC Public Companies
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250