Motorola has filed its opposition to Microsoft’s motion to transfer the appeal of Judge Robart’s RAND ruling from the Federal Circuit to the Ninth Circuit (see our prior blog on Microsoft’s motion). Recall that Microsoft argued that the appealed action was a contract action, its nature did not change when that action was consolidated
Qualcomm and Ericsson Submit Amicus Briefs in Apple v. Motorola Judge Crabb Appeal (No. 13-1150)
Qualcomm and Ericsson have filed amicus briefs in the appeal of Judge Crabb’s dismissal of Apple’s declaratory judgment action that sought a court-determined FRAND royalty rate under Motorola patents, where Judge Crabb dismissed the case after Apple would not agree to be bound by that FRAND determination (see our July post). Qualcomm and Ericsson
Microsoft seeks to move appeal of Judge Robart’s RAND ruling to Ninth Circuit
Microsoft is seeking to transfer Motorola’s appeal of Judge Robart’s RAND ruling from the Federal Circuit to the Ninth Circuit. Specifically, last Thursday, Nov. 21, Microsoft filed in the Federal Circuit a motion to transfer to the Ninth Circuit and today, Nov. 25, Microsoft filed a companion motion to terminate Motorola’s appeal through a transfer
Motorola appeals to Federal Circuit Judge Robart’s Rule 54(b) judgment on RAND issues
Today Judge Robart issued an Order certifying a Rule 54(b) judgment in the Microsoft v. Motorola case where he had issued a first of its kind RAND rate ruling on Motorola H.264 and 802.11 standard essential patents (SEPs) and sustained the jury verdict that Motorola breached its RAND obligations in offering a license to Microsoft.
Federal Circuit oral arguments being held today in Apple v. Motorola “Posner appeal” (No. 12-1548)
This morning, the Federal Circuit will hold arguments in appeal no. 12-1548, Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., which is the appeal of Judge Posner’s dismissal of both parties’ patent infringement claims for failure to prove entitlement to a remedy (either injunctive relief or damages). This is a case that could have vast consequences for
Apple files opening appellate brief in second Motorola/FRAND-related Federal Circuit appeal
Last week, we noted that the Federal Circuit will hold a September 11 oral argument in Apple and Motorola’s appeals of Judge Posner’s June 2012 decision to dismiss the parties’ competing infringement suits. The “Posner appeal” will provide the Federal Circuit with the opportunity to weigh in on SEP issues in a patent infringement context, such as how the FRAND framework may constrain damages, and whether a party with a FRAND commitment can ever satisfy the eBay standard for an injunction. But this appeal is not the only one involving Apple, Motorola, and FRAND/SEP issues that is pending before the Federal Circuit.
Also last week, Apple filed its opening brief in this other Federal Circuit appeal — the appeal of Judge Barbara Crabb’s November 2012 decision to dismiss Apple’s FRAND-related breach of contract suit on the eve of trial (after, at least in Judge Crabb’s eyes, Apple failed to commit to entering into a FRAND license at the rate she might set — see this link for a brief refresher on the details of this particular case). The case before Judge Crabb (and consequently, this appeal) is more like Microsoft’s original complaint in the Microsoft-Motorola case, as opposed to the case before Judge Posner — there are no infringement claims, only claims brought by Apple that relate to Motorola’s alleged violation of its FRAND commitments (breach of contract, antitrust, etc.). Apple frames the issues in this appeal as follows:
- Apple provided evidence that Motorola violated § 2 of the Sherman Act by making deceptive FRAND commitments and by failing to timely disclose its intellectual property. The Noerr-Pennington doctrine immunizes a party from antitrust liability only where the challenged conduct is the petitioning of a government entity. Did the district court err in holding that Apple’s antitrust claim was barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine?
- Apple would not commit to accept a license offer from Motorola without knowing the price. Did the district court err by dismissing Apple’s contract claims on that basis, where Apple had no contractual obligation to accept any offer from Motorola?
- Apple asserted three declaratory judgment claims that would have settled uncertainty regarding Motorola’s patent rights and obligations. Did the district court err in refusing to adjudicate those claims?
- Does this Court have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over this appeal because the suit encompasses declaratory judgment claims relating to Motorola’s patent suit?
According to Apple, the answer to each of these questions is a resounding yes. After the jump, we’ll take a look at Apple’s brief in a bit more detail.
Continue Reading Apple files opening appellate brief in second Motorola/FRAND-related Federal Circuit appeal
RANDomness – Federal Circuit News
- Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a jury verdict invalidating a University of California patent that had been asserted by a non-practicing entity, Eolas, against dozens of companies based on their use of “interactive” features on the World Wide Web. More on this case from Joe Mullin at ArsTechnica.
Federal Circuit reverses ITC decision to terminate LG Electronics from InterDigital 3G patent case (337-TA-800)
Later this month, Adminstrative Law Judge David P. Shaw is expected to issue an Initial Determination in In the Matter of Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-800), which is the ITC’s Section 337 investigation into InterDigital’s allegations of 3G-essential patent infringement by Huawei, LG Electronics, Nokia, and ZTE. The upcoming ID, though, will only relate to infringement accusations against Huawei, Nokia, and ZTE — as LG had previously been terminated from the case in July 2012. LG had been dismissed from the ITC case because LG claimed that InterDigital’s infringement allegations were an “arbitrable dispute” covered by a license agreement between the parties, and that an arbitrator — not the ITC — should decide the infringement issues. Once the ITC terminated LG from the case, InterDigital appealed this ruling to the Federal Circuit.
Today, in a 2-1 opinion [LINK] written by Judge Sharon Prost (joined by Judge William Bryson, with Judge Alan Lourie dissenting), the Federal Circuit reversed the ITC’s decision and remanded the case to the ITC for further proceedings. The court held that the ITC erred in terminating LG from the investigation, because the ITC failed to analyze the text of the license agreement to determine whether LG’s arguments regarding the arbitrability of the infringement dispute were “wholly groundless.” Furthermore, the court found that when the text of the agreement was actually considered, LG’s assertions were indeed “wholly groundless,” and the infringement claims were not subject to arbitration.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit reverses ITC decision to terminate LG Electronics from InterDigital 3G patent case (337-TA-800)
Recent Supreme Court grant of petition for certiorari may have implications for standard-essential patent disputes (Medtronic v. Boston Scientific)
Back in September 2012, we posted a Patent Alert on the Federal Circuit’s decision in Medtronic v. Boston Scientific. In that case, the court held that in an action where a licensee in good standing seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement (so any counterclaim for infringement would be foreclosed by the existence of the
Motorola tells Federal Circuit that its prior SEP licenses were not the result of hold-up, and that injunctions must be available against “intransigent infringers” of FRAND patents
Earlier this week, we noted that Apple directed the Federal Circuit’s attention to Judge Robart’s Microsoft-Motorola decision in Apple-Motorola “Posner Appeal.” (For a recap of the parties’ FRAND-related appellate briefing in the case thus far, see our prior posts on Motorola’s opening brief and Apple’s responsive brief). Yesterday, Motorola’s reply brief became publicly available.
[2013.05.13 Motorola Reply Brief (12-1548)]
In its brief — summarized after the jump — Motorola reiterates its prior arguments to the Federal Circuit that Judge Posner erred in concluding that Motorola could not prove entitlement to either monetary or injunctive relief as compensation for Apple’s alleged infringement. But Motorola does not just repeat the same arguments it made in its opening brief — it also attempts to address arguments raised by Apple concerning patent hold-up and the effect of the January 2013 FTC-Google consent decree.