Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ACC vs. FSU BoT
ACC vs. FSU BoT
Plaintiff,
Defendant.
Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-45.4, Plaintiff Atlantic Coast Conference (“the
business case. In good faith and based on information reasonably available, the ACC,
through counsel, hereby certifies that this action meets the criteria for:
1
Electronically Filed Date:12/21/2023 5:38 PM Mecklenburg County Clerk of Superior Court
X (5) Disputes involving the ownership, use, licensing, lease,
installation, or performance of intellectual property,
including computer software, software applications,
information technology and systems, data and data
security, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology products, and
bioscience technologies.
In support of this designation, the ACC shows the Court the following:
2
1. This action is about the enforcement of an irrevocable and exclusive
grant of media rights by the Board of Trustees of Florida State University (“Florida
State”) to the ACC in exchange for millions in rights fees over the last decade (the
“Grant of Rights”). Florida State seeks to invalidate its irrevocable and exclusive
Grant of Rights to the ACC. In so doing, Florida State breaches the Grant of Rights
and its promise that it would “not take any action . . . that would affect the validity
that the Grant of Rights is valid, enforceable, exclusive, and irrevocable through its
term, (2) a declaration that Florida State is estopped from challenging the validity of
the Grant of Rights due to its acceptance of millions under same for over a decade;
and (3) to bar Florida State from in any way seeking to invalidate or breach the Grant
covered by the Grant of Rights to any person or entity other than the ACC.
3. The Grant of Rights establishes that Florida State, along with all other
members of the ACC, irrevocably and exclusively granted to the ACC through June
2036 the media, broadcast, and distribution rights to its home athletic games. In
other words, the Grant of Rights establishes the ACC’s right to Florida State’s
intellectual property rights. As the holder of these media and intellectual property
rights, the ACC, on behalf of its member institutions, agreed to permit ESPN, in
exchange for the payment of a yearly “Rights Fee,” to be a significant (and now
exclusive) distributor of its varsity athletic sports, including Football and Men’s
3
Basketball. The yearly Rights Fee that ESPN pays the ACC, who then distributes
the Rights Fee to its members, exceeds $5,000,000. The ACC seeks to enforce the
grant of these intellectual property rights and declare that its ownership, use, and
licensing of same are valid. Thus, this dispute concerns the ownership, use, and
$5,000,000.
Carolina law, the ACC’s right to sue Florida State turns on, among other things,
business case under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-45.4(b)(2) because it involves material
issues related to (1) the ownership, through the Grant of Rights, of the media rights
for Florida State’s athletic contests, a form of intellectual property; (2) interpretation
associations); and (3) the amount in controversy that is the subject of this request for
declaratory and injunctive relief exceeds $5,000,000, as the media rights to Florida
State’s home athletic contests exceeds $5,000,000 and the total value of the ACC’s
media rights under the Grant of Rights is even greater. See Intersal, Inc. v. Hamilton,
No. 15 CVS 9995, (N.C. Super. Sept. 10, 2015) (designating case about alleged
violations of exclusive media rights as mandatory complex business case); see also
4
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-243(3) (value of the obligation or right at issue is the amount in
45.4(d)(1) because it is filed contemporaneously with the Complaint, which was filed
on December 21, 2023. True and correct copies of the Complaint filed under seal,
publicly filed Complaint, issued Summonses, and Motion to Seal are attached as
7. For these reasons, the ACC respectfully requests that this Action be
designated as a mandatory complex business case pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-
45.4.
8. In the alternative, if Court finds that this case is not appropriate for
that the Court, in its discretion, designate this case as a complex business matter
pursuant to Rule 2.1 of the General Rules of Practice for the Superior and District
Courts. See General Rules of Practice, Rule 2.1 (“The Chief Justice may designate
5
This 21st day of December, 2023.
6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the foregoing Notice of Designation was served by email
on December 21, 2023 to:
and
or, in Carolyn Egan’s absence, any other in-house attorney for Florida
State University
222 S. Copeland Street, Suite 211 Westcott Building
Tallahassee FL 32306-1470
or, in the absence of any other in-house attorney for Florida State
University, an employee of Florida State University at its main office
222 S. Copeland Street, Suite 211 Westcott Building
7
Tallahassee FL 32306-1470
Jack Campbell
State Attorney for the 2nd Judicial Court of Florida
301 South Monroe Street, Suite #475
Tallahassee, FL 32301