Earlier this week, we caught up on summary judgment motions filed by both Microsoft and Motorola in advance of next month’s breach of contract jury trial, set to take place in Seattle. Yesterday, both parties filed reply briefs in support of these motions:
Over the past few years, courts have begun cracking down on improper damages theories. The Federal Circuit’s 2012 opinion in LaserDynamics v. Quanta is instructive on this point, noting that in the absence of evidence that the patented functionality is the source of the demand for the entire product, then damages must be based on
It’s been relatively quiet in the Western District of Washington over the past couple weeks, as Motorola and Microsoft move forward toward an August jury trial on Microsoft’s RAND-based breach of contract claims. But according to a minute order filed by the court this past Tuesday, this week the parties raised two separate disputes for
Today, June 14, 2013, in Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Manufacturing Corp., No. 2011-1363, 1364, an en banc Federal Circuit ruled that parties can appeal a decision on liability in patent infringement cases before there has been a trial on damages or willfulness.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c), the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction
Last week, the Federal Circuit granted a motion by Microsoft for permission to file an amicus brief in the Apple-Motorola appeal (No. 12-1548, Judge Posner edition). Microsoft then filed its amicus brief, becoming the latest in a long time of companies (see, e.g., here, here, here, and here) to weigh in on the case. Today, the public version of Microsoft’s brief became available. In it, Microsoft supports Apple and Judge Posner, but cautions the Federal Circuit against making an overly broad ruling and deciding issues related to standard-essential patents and RAND licensing obligations that are not present before the court.
[2013.06.04 Microsoft Amicus Brief (12-1548)]
Microsoft pulls no punches — it argues at the outset that Motorola’s positions “are wrong as a legal matter and terrible as a policy matter.” That should come as no surprise, given Microsoft’s current litigation disputes with Motorola (as well as ongoing competition with its parent company, Google). But Microsoft claims that its interest in this case goes far beyond its adversarial relationship with Motorola, arguing that as an active participant in many SSOs and implementer of many standards, Microsoft wants to ensure that standards are broadly implemented for the benefit of the public.Continue Reading Microsoft amicus brief supports Apple, cautions Federal Circuit about breadth of ruling in Apple-Motorola appeal
Earlier this week, both Nokia and BlackBerry (formerly Research In Motion) were both granted leave to file amicus briefs with the Federal Circuit in the Apple v. Motorola appeal of Judge Posner’s June 2012 decision to dismiss the parties’ respective infringement claims. BlackBerry’s brief is still confidential, but Nokia’s is now publicly available.
[2013.05.06 Nokia Amicus Brief]
While Nokia’s amicus brief is styled as being “in support of neither party,” it’s clear that Motorola should be the one happy here — Nokia asks the Federal Circuit to reverse Judge Posner’s decisions relating to Motorola’s standard-essential patents at issue, both with respect to damages and injunctive relief. Nokia claims that Judge Posner’s ruling (1) creates a bright line rule against injunctions that violates Supreme Court precedent, and (2) unnecessarily devalues standard-essential patents by mandating that any damages be based on the smallest salable unit, which runs contrary to industry practices in SEP licensing. A summary is after the jump.
In the aftermath of last week’s Microsoft-Motorola RAND-setting opinion, the case will now to proceed toward an August trial date. At this trial — if it gets that far — either Judge Robart or a jury (this issue is still up in the air) will determine (1) whether Motorola breach its RAND obligations to the IEEE and ITU; (2) if a breach has occurred, whether Microsoft is entitled to damages as a result; and (3) the amount of any damages owed. As we’ve noted before, Microsoft will likely seek summary judgment prior to trial, given the difference between Motorola’s opening 2.25% offer and the final RAND royalty rate set by Judge Robart. But either way, the issues of breach of contract and potential damages remain in the case, and the parties are currently taking some limited discovery on these issues.
Yesterday, Motorola filed a letter motion with the court [LINK], asking it to limit the theories on which Microsoft may base its damages claims. Motorola asserts that in recent weeks, Microsoft has significantly (and improperly) expanded its damages contentions in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, prejudicing Motorola’s ability to prepare its own case.Continue Reading Motorola asks Washington court to limit Microsoft’s theories of damages for potential RAND breach
Much of the activity and attention in the standard-essential patent world over the last few days has been focused on Judge James L. Robart’s groundbreaking decision in the Microsoft-Motorola RAND breach of contract case. But that wasn’t the only RAND-related bit of news happening this past Thursday — that same day, in the Federal Circuit, Apple filed its response to Motorola’s appeal of Judge Posner’s decision to deny both damages and injunctive relief to Motorola in a case involving Apple’s alleged infringement of Motorola standard-essential patents.
Due to the fact that the Federal Circuit has consolidated appeals by both parties, Apple’s brief is technically both a response brief and a reply brief — but we will only deal with the SEP-specific issues here. In the brief, which we’ll delve into after the jump, Apple urges the Federal Circuit to uphold Judge Posner’s findings that, even if infringement could be proven: (1) Motorola failed to introduce a cognizable damages theory for infringement of the SEPs at issue; and (2) Motorola could not show entitlement to injunctive relief for its FRAND-encumbered patents.
Link: [Apple April 25, 2013 Appellate Brief]Continue Reading Apple asks Federal Circuit to affirm Judge Posner’s denial of injunctive relief and damages for Motorola FRAND-pledged standard-essential patents
Last week we discussed a couple of amicus briefs in the Apple-Motorola Federal Circuit appeal that addressed standard-essential patent issues. Intel supported Apple’s view that injunctions should generally not be available for FRAND-pledges SEPs, while Qualcomm supported Motorola’s contention that there is no such blanket restriction. In this post, we’ll address two more briefs, both of which were filed by parties supporting Apple: (1) the Business Software Alliance, which is a trade association of software and hardware technology companies; and (2) a group of law school professors.