Microsoft Corporation v. Motorola, Inc, et al
Filed (ECF) Appellants General Instrument Corporation and Motorola Mobility, Inc. citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 09/06/2012.  (KMS)
trial lawyers | new york
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 10010-1601 | TEL: (212) 849-7000 FAX: (212) 849-7100
WRITER’S DIRECT DIAL NO.
WRITER’S INTERNET ADDRESS
September 6, 2012
Molly C. Dwyer
Clerk of the Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
James R. Browning Courthouse
95 7th Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc. et al., No. 12-35352
Argument Scheduled for September 11, 2012 (Wallace, Thomas, Berzon)
Dear Ms. Dwyer:
Defendants-Appellants (“Motorola”) hereby respond to Microsoft’s 28(j) letter of August 13,
2012, submitting for this Court’s consideration the decision in Apple, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility, Inc.,
No. 11–cv–178–bbc, 2012 WL 3289835 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 10, 2012) (“Apple” or “Ex. A”). The
Wisconsin district court’s decision supports Motorola’s position on appeal and belies Microsoft’s
account of why the court below should be proceeding as it has.
In Apple, the RAND breach alleged was based not simply on an opening offer, standing
alone, but also on three years of ensuing negotiations. Ex. A at 12 (“Motorola continued to engage
in license negotiations with Apple for approximately three years.”). Motorola has explained that, in
this case, no such negotiations were attempted before Microsoft filed suit in immediate response to
Motorola’s offer letter. Motorola Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 9-10.
quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
LOS ANGELES | 865
South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 | TEL (213) 443-3000 FAX (213) 443-3100
California Street, 22nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-4788 | TEL (415) 875-6600 FAX (415) 875-6700
SILICON VALLEY | 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor, Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 | TEL (650) 801-5000 FAX (650) 801-5100
CHICAGO | 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2450, Chicago, Illinois 60661-2510 | TEL (312) 705-7400 FAX (312) 705-7401
SAN FRANCISCO | 50
WASHINGTON, DC | 1299
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 825, Washington, District of Columbia 20004-2400 | TEL (202) 538-8000 FAX (202) 538-8100
Old Bailey, London EC4M 7EG, United Kingdom | TEL +44 20 7653 2000 FAX +44 20 7653 2100
TOKYO | NBF Hibiya Building, 25F, 1-1-7, Uchisaiwai-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0011, Japan | TEL +81 3 5510 1711 FAX +81 3 5510 1712
MANNHEIM | Mollstraße 42, 68165 Mannheim, Germany | TEL +49 621 43298 6000 FAX +49 621 43298 6100
MOSCOW | Paveletskaya Plaza, Paveletskaya Square, 2/3, 115054 Moscow, Russia | TEL +7 499 277 1000 FAX +7 499 277 1001
LONDON | 16
An der Alster 3, 20099 Hamburg, Germany | TEL +49 40 89728 7000
40 89728 7100
Moreover, the Wisconsin district court’s decision does not contemplate conferring any actual
RAND license, much less doing so globally. Ex. A at 46. Rather, the district court in Wisconsin
plans to determine at trial whether Motorola has breached any obligation, id., thereby sharply
contrasting with Microsoft’s request that the Seattle district court draft a global RAND license from
scratch that the parties must accept, without any prior determination whether Motorola breached any
RAND commitments, see Dist Ct. Dkt No. 362, at 4-5 (July 18, 2012).
Finally, the Apple decision confirms the impropriety of the anti-suit injunction under appeal.
When Apple sought to enjoin, inter alia, portions of Motorola’s case before the International Trade
Commission concerning domestic infringement of Motorola’s U.S. patents, the Wisconsin court
denied that relief. Ex. A at 13, 15. Far from reflecting like restraint, the preliminary injunction
under appeal reaches into Germany to prevent German courts from enjoining infringement of
German patents. See, e.g., Motorola Br. 1, 19, 26-29; Reply Br. 3, 12-14, 16.
In each of these respects, the Apple decision points to reversal, both by highlighting the
predicate for RAND adjudication that is absent here and by demonstrating restraint relative to the
preliminary relief that has been ordered here.
Kathleen M. Sullivan
cc: Counsel for Microsoft Corp. via ECF
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?