A couple weeks ago, Apple directed the Federal Circuit’s attention to the Microsoft-Motorola RAND-setting opinion. Apple claimed that in a variety of ways, Judge Robart’s decision supported Apple’s arguments on appeal. This past Friday, Motorola filed a brief response to Apple’s citation of supplemental authority — and in it, Motorola claims that the reasoning of
Microsoft-Motorola trial “phase two” set for August 26, 2013 — and it will be a jury trial
A couple months ago, Microsoft asked Judge James L. Robart to confirm that the second phase of the Microsoft-Motorola RAND breach of contract trial — in which the actual breach and damages issues will be addressed — would be tried to Judge Robart himself, and not a jury (a motion that Motorola opposed). Microsoft
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.
Apple cites Judge Robart’s Microsoft-Motorola decision as supplemental FRAND authority in Fed Circuit, ITC cases
As many commentators have noted, Judge Robart’s Microsoft-Motorola decision may provide a roadmap to courts and parties in other FRAND disputes. Not surprisingly, Apple recently brought the decision to the attention of both the Federal Circuit (in the appeal of Judge Posner’s decision to dismiss Motorola’s SEP-related claim for damages and injunctive relief) and the
Scope of IEEE RAND obligations a hotly-contested issue in Innovatio IP Ventures WiFi patent litigation
As many of you are aware, a non-practicing entity named Innovatio IP Ventures has been engaged in a widespread licensing and litigation campaign over WiFi-related patents that were formerly owned by Broadcom. As a result, Innovatio has become embroiled in litigation with several suppliers of WiFi-compliant devices (Cisco, Motorola Solutions, Netgear) in the Northern District of Illinois. A few weeks ago, we noted that a debate had arisen in that case over the “essentiality” of certain asserted patents. The presiding judge ordered briefing on the issue, and Innovatio filed its “Essentiality Brief” a couple weeks ago — asserting that not all of its asserted claims were essential or covered by IEEE RAND obligations. This past Friday, the WiFi Suppliers filed their response to Innovatio’s Essentiality Brief. The WiFi Suppliers accuse Innovatio of misconstruing both the IEEE Patent Policy and the relevant RAND licensing Letters of Assurance in an attempt to avoid its RAND obligations.
[2013.05.10 Defendants’ Brief re Essentiality of Patent Claims]
We alluded in our last post on this matter that issues of patent “essentiality” — and therefore, the scope of corresponding RAND obligations — are likely to become a more common issue in standard-essential patent litigation. The WiFi Suppliers’ responsive brief demonstrates why.Continue Reading Scope of IEEE RAND obligations a hotly-contested issue in Innovatio IP Ventures WiFi patent litigation
BlackBerry files amicus brief supporting availability of SEP injunctions in Fed Circuit FRAND appeal (and also gets sued by Wi-LAN for LTE patent infringement)
In a post yesterday, we discussed Nokia’s amicus brief submitted “in support of neither party” in the Apple-Motorola FRAND Federal Circuit appeal (Judge Posner edition). The amicus brief recently filed by BlackBerry (formerly Research In Motion) is now public, and it is very similar to Nokia’s — at least when it comes to the issue of the availability of injunctive relief. While not expressly supporting Motorola, BlackBerry echoes Motorola’s (as well as Nokia’s) argument that injunction relief should not be categorically precluded for FRAND-encumbered standard-essential patents.
[2013.05.07 BlackBerry Amicus Brief]
Coincidentally, BlackBerry also now finds itself on the receiving end of a new patent infringement complaint from Canadian non-practicing entity Wi-LAN, which is based on BlackBerry’s alleged infringement of a patent that Wi-LAN claims is essential to the ETSI 3GPP Long-Term Evolution (LTE) telecommunications standard.
Nokia amicus brief urges Federal Circuit to reverse Judge Posner’s standard-essential patent rulings
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.
RAND damages discovery dispute continues – Microsoft says Motorola’s brief is a pretext to dismiss damages claim
Late Friday, Microsoft responded to the letter brief filed by Motorola last week in the parties’ RAND breach of contract case. In its responsive letter brief [LINK], Microsoft disputes Motorola’s versions of the facts, and contends that Motorola has long known about the bases on which Microsoft would be seeking damages for breach of contract. In particular, Microsoft claims that Motorola has known for over a year that Microsoft would be seeking to recover the costs of moving its EMEA distribution center from Germany to the Netherlands. Microsoft suggests that Motorola’s efforts to limit Microsoft’s damages theories are nothing but a pretext for Motorola to actually dismiss Microsoft’s claims for damages for breach of contract.
Continue Reading RAND damages discovery dispute continues – Microsoft says Motorola’s brief is a pretext to dismiss damages claim
European Commission sends preliminary Statement of Objections to Motorola, finding potential SEP-related antitrust violation
We generally focus on U.S.-specific standard-essential patent issues here at the Essential Patent Blog, but often there are some international developments that are worth noting. Today brings us one of those, as the European Commission announced that it has sent a Statement of Objections to Motorola Mobility as part of its investigation into Motorola’s potential
Which appeals court has appellate jurisdiction over the Microsoft-Motorola RAND case?
The district court in the Microsoft-Motorola RAND breach of contract case has already decided some unique issues of first impression, and will take on some more in the next phase of the case. And if the parties don’t settle, an appeal is likely to follow. This raises an interesting question, one that doesn’t necessarily have a clear answer — which appellate court would have jurisdiction over an appeal of Judge Robart’s RAND-related rulings?
The Western District of Washington sits within the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (which, as noted below, has already heard an interlocutory appeal in this case). But as you may know, in order to preserve uniformity in patent law, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit in Washington, DC is the court designated by Congress as the appeals court with exclusive jurisdiction for nearly all patent cases. The Microsoft-Motorola case (at least the part which has garnered the most attention) involves a breach of contract issue relating to patents, standard-setting, and patent licensing issues. So, which is it — the 9th Circuit or the Fed Circuit?
Brace yourselves – this will take a couple thousand words.