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:
It’s July (and brutally hot on the East Coast), so you’ll have to excuse us if we’re moving a little slower than normal catching up on all the SEP litigation going around. Earlier this month we posted about submissions by Microsoft and Motorola concerning the meaning of the “duty of good faith and fair dealing,” specifically as it applies in RAND-encumbered standard-essential patent licensing. Not surprisingly, the parties followed up these briefs with dueling summary judgment motions, seeking to narrow issues or even potentially completely eliminate the need for the breach of contract jury trial set to take place next month in Seattle. Last week, the parties also filed their respective oppositions to these motions. You can take a look at the parties’ motions and oppositions below — and after the jump, we’ll give a brief synopsis of the arguments that each is making.
13.07.03 (D.E. 727) Microsoft Motion for Partial SJ and 13.07.15 (D.E. 758) Motorola Response to MS Partial SJ Motion
13.07.03 (D.E. 720) Motorola Motion for SJ and 13.07.12 (D.E. 740) MS Response to Motorola SJ MotionContinue Reading With dueling summary judgment motions, Microsoft and Motorola seek to eliminate issues from next month’s RAND trial
Later this summer, the second phase of the Microsoft v. Motorola RAND breach of contract trial will take place in Judge James L. Robart’s courtroom in Seattle, WA. A jury will decide whether Motorola breached its SSO-related RAND licensing obligations by offering what Microsoft deems “blatantly unreasonable” licensing terms for its 802.11- and H.264-essential patents, and then following up with patent infringement suits.
In a prior summary judgment order, Judge Robart already concluded that in order to be permissible under its RAND obligations, Motorola’s license offers “must comport with the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing inherent in every contract.” He noted that this inquiry is heavily fact-intensive, and best left to the jury to decide. To this end, Judge Robart recently requested that both Microsoft and Motorola present background briefing on the parameters of what is required by the duty of good faith and fair dealing in contractual disputes. This week, the parties complied with this request:
Both parties acknowledge that the issue of good faith and fair dealing is complicated — but understandably, the parties also differ quite a bit in their views on what should be considered. After the jump, we’ll take a brief look at the filings.
This past Tuesday, Judge James L. Robart held a telephonic hearing in the Microsoft-Motorola RAND breach of contract dispute taking place in his W.D. Wash. court. As we discussed last week, the hearing centered on Microsoft’s request that the court release a previously-ordered $100 million bond — a bond that it had required Microsoft to
By now, it’s really no surprise to those who pay attention to SEP issues that certain lawmakers have their eyes on the standard-essential patent world, as well. Although non-practicing entity issues generally grab headlines these days, Congress does make some time for SEPs, too. One example of this just became public — a May 21
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
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
Earlier this week, we discussed N.D. Cal. Judge Ronald Whyte’s order granting partial summary judgment and issuing a preliminary injunction in a Realtek v. LSI district court case. As we explained in our post, while the district court found that LSI had breached its contractual RAND obligations by filing an ITC complaint without first making
While much of the focus on standard-essential patent litigation issues has been focused on Microsoft-Motorola, Apple-Samsung, and the InterDigital cases, these are far from the only cases dealing with SEP issues. District courts and the ITC continue to develop case law on SEP and RAND-related issues.
In an order issued yesterday in Realtek Semiconductor v. LSI (No. 12-cv-03451, N.D. Cal.), Judge Ronald Whyte of the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction that purports to prevent LSI from enforcing an ITC exclusion order until LSI has complied with its IEEE-related RAND obligations. According to the order [LINK], this means that LSI must wait to enforce any exclusion order until: (1) the court has determined an appropriate RAND rate for LSI’s 802.11-essential patents, (2) LSI offers a license to Realtek at that rate; and (3) Realtek refuses to enter into a license at the judicially-determined RAND rate (which, as the court states, “Realtek indicates it will not do.).
With the ITC’s decision in the 337-TA-794 investigation (on the propriety of exclusion orders for FRAND-pledged essential patents) involving Samsung and Apple due by the end of the month, this is certainly an interesting development. But given the way the ITC operates, we’re not so sure that the court’s order is going to have the desired effect. Let’s take a look at Judge Whyte’s order, shall we?
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