 | Misunderstanding of Legal Procedure I've read these posts with interest because they contain a lot of misinformation about the procedural aspects of this case. My comments are not on the merits of the case because I don't know enough about the parties' contentions. But a declaratory judgment action is a full-blown lawsuit. It requires the plaintiff to show that there is an actual controversy with the defendant and that it has a reasonable apprehension of being sued by the defendant. The DJ action allows the plaintiff to initiate the lawsuit to avoid the constant concern about being sued at some future time. It also allows the plaintiff to choose the court in which to file the action. There are occasions in which the court dismisses a DJ action because it determines that the plaintiff did not really have a reasonable apprehension of being sued. This can happen if the parties are still in negotiations.
Once the DJ action is filed, the defendant (in this case, Hotbar) can file a counterclaim alleging what it would have alleged if it had filed suit first. DJ actions proceed just like a normal lawsuit. If the parties cannot settle it, it will go to trial. It can end sooner without settlement if a party can succeed in convincing the court that no trial is necessary since the facts are not in genuine dispute and the judge can decide the merits of the case without a trial. This can happen in any lawsuit.
Regarding precedent, it's a very important concept in our legal system. However, it isn't always black and white. Law libraries are filled with cases in which an appellate court distinguished the facts of the case before it from other previous cases and arrived at a different result. Appellate courts can also decide that their rationale in previous cases was no longer correct and move in a new direction.
Anyway, Symantec's DJ action suggests that it had been in discussions with Hotbar before it filed suit and that it believed it had a reasonable apprehension of being sued by Hotbar. It just beat Hotbar to the punch. |