UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT April 09, 2025 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

WHC HTX, LLC, § Plaintiff, § § v. § Civil Action H-24-4954 § Yellow Cab, Inc. and § Gawad Akbari § Defendants. §

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS’ COUNTERCLAIMS Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Defendants’ Counterclaim for Failure to State a Claim. ECF No. 15. Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ counterclaims should be dismissed because they are duplicative of claims Plaintiff has already alleged in its Complaint. Defendants argue that the “mirror image” rule does not universally apply in intellectual property cases. The motion is DENIED for essentially the reasons set forth in a nearly identical case that the undersigned recently decided. See ASG Chem. Holdings, LLC v. Bisley Int’l, LLC, No. H- 23-4333,

(S.D. Tex. Nov. 18, 2024), M&R adopted,

(S.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2025). Denial of the motion is without prejudice to Plaintiff re- urging the same arguments later in the case. “[E]arly dismissal of a counterclaim under Rule 12[] might be premature in some cases.” Stickrath v. Globalstar, Inc., No. C07-1941 TEH,

, at *5 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2008). It can be very difficult to determine whether a declaratory judgment counterclaim is redundant before trial. “Thus, the safer course for the court to follow is to deny a request to dismiss a counterclaim for declaratory relief unless there is no doubt that it will be rendered moot by the adjudication of the main action.” 6 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1406 (3d ed. 2024).

Signed at Houston, Texas on April 9, 2025.

Peter Bray 7 United States Magistrate Judge