When Judge Robart issued his summary judgment order last week in the Microsoft-Motorola case, we noted that he ordered the parties to submit further briefing on Microsoft’s allegation that Motorola breached its RAND obligations to Microsoft (at least in part) by failing to offer a RAND license to Microsoft’s WiFi chip supplier, Marvell Semiconductor:
As the court understands it, Microsoft will argue to the jury that Motorola failed to grant a license to Marvell, and if Motorola had granted such a license, Motorola would then be precluded from seeking a license from Microsoft for the SEPs at issue. This argument requires a legal basis. The argument is premised on the notion that, legally, Motorola’s ability to seek a license from Microsoft would be exhausted by granting a license to Marvell. This issue is not explored in the parties’ summary judgment briefing. Thus, the parties may provide three-page letter briefs no later than August 16, 2013, on the legal grounds for Microsoft’s assertion that a Motorola-Marvell license would preclude Motorola from seeking a license from Microsoft. Additionally, no later than August 16, 2013, the parties may propose jury instructions on this issue.
On Friday, the parties submitted letter briefs in response to this order (links below). As we alluded to in last week’s post, this issue raises some interesting questions on what types of behavior and licensing restrictions are proper during FRAND licensing negotiations — questions that we’ll get into after the jump.
- 13.08.16 (D.E. 851) Motorola Letter Brief re Marvell FRAND issue
- 13.08.16 (D.E. 854) Microsoft Letter Brief re Marvell FRAND issue