Openwave Systems Inc. v. Myriad France S.A.S.
Filing
358
ORDER GRANTING MYRIAD'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 AND PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, Order by Hon. William Alsup granting 336 Motion in Limine.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS INC.,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
No. C 10-02805 WHA
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER GRANTING
MYRIAD’S MOTION
IN LIMINE NO. 1 AND
PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
MYRIAD FRANCE S.A.S.,
Defendant.
/
15
16
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS
/
17
18
19
INTRODUCTION
In this dispute regarding ownership of 36 patents and one patent application, defendant
20
moves in limine to exclude evidence that the parties did not intend a contract clause limiting
21
assignment of contract rights to apply to a particular corporate transaction. For the following
22
reasons, the motion is GRANTED. This order also grants partial summary judgment on one of the
23
threshold issues identified for trial in the first phase of this action.
24
STATEMENT
25
The facts of the case were set forth in the May 2011 order denying summary judgment
26
(Dkt. No. 256). One of the threshold issues designated for the first phase was whether Myriad
27
France S.A.S. has standing to assert rights under the June 2008 agreement between Openwave
28
Systems Inc. and Purple Labs S.A., Myriad’s claimed predecessor. Specifically, the issue was
1
framed as whether the 2009 transaction between Purple Labs and Esmertec AG constituted an
2
attempted transfer of Purple Labs’ rights under the 2008 Intellectual Property License Agreement
3
pursuant to California law, and, if so, whether the transfer fell under any of the IPLA’s four
4
enumerated exceptions that Myriad contends do not require Openwave’s prior written consent
5
(Dkt. No. 303 at 9). Myriad now moves in limine to exclude evidence that the parties did not
6
intend the exceptions to apply to the 2009 transaction between Purple Labs and Esmertec;
7
Openwave opposes (Dkt. No. 336).
8
9
ANALYSIS
The IPLA is a fully-integrated contract (June 29 Order, Dkt. No. 303 at 5–6). As such,
parol evidence may be admitted only if it is relevant to prove a meaning to which the language of
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
the IPLA is reasonably susceptible. United States Cellular Inv. Co. of Los Angeles v. GTE
12
Mobilnet, Inc., 281 F.3d 929, 938 (9th Cir. 2002).
13
The plain language of the IPLA provides that a party may assign its rights under the
14
agreement “to a successor of any portion of the business of such Party resulting from a
15
reorganization, spin-off, sale, or divestiture of such business” without the other party’s consent
16
(Dkt. No. 142-1 at § 7.3). Myriad has presented credible evidence that Purple Labs’ 2009
17
transaction with Esmertec constituted a “reorganization” under California law. Specifically,
18
Myriad explains that Purple Labs became a wholly owned subsidiary of Esmertec through a
19
process defined as “reorganization” under Section 181(b) of the California Corporations Code
20
(Br. 1–4; Dkt. No. 164 at § 2.1).
21
Openwave argues that the 2009 transaction did not constitute a reorganization under
22
Section 181(b) because it did not satisfy the condition that “immediately after the acquisition, the
23
acquiring entity has control of the other entity” CAL. CORP. CODE § 181(b). Openwave does not
24
contest that Purple Labs became a wholly owned subsidiary of Esmertec. Instead, Openwave
25
emphasizes that Purple Labs also acquired a majority of the shares in Esmertec (Opp. 3–5). This
26
observation is irrelevant to the control inquiry. For purposes of Section 181, control “means the
27
ownership directly or indirectly of shares or equity securities possessing more than 50 percent of
28
the voting power of a domestic corporation, a foreign corporation, or an other business entity.”
2
1
CAL. CORP. CODE § 160(b). Since Purple Labs became a wholly owned subsidiary of Esmertec,
2
Esmertec owned all of the shares in Purple Labs, and therefore Esmertec had control of Purple
3
Labs as defined by the statute. That Purple Labs chose to invest heavily in Esmertec does not
4
change this analysis.
5
This order finds that the 2009 corporate transaction between Purple Labs and Esmertec
6
was a reorganization under California law. Accordingly, the exception set forth in Section 7.3(c)
7
of the IPLA applies, and the fact that Openwave did not provide prior written permission for
8
the 2009 transaction does not impair Myriad’s standing to assert rights under the IPLA. This
9
order does not reach the parties’ arguments concerning the following: (1) whether any other
exceptions in Section 7.3 of the IPLA apply to the 2009 transaction; (2) whether the 2009
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
transaction involved an attempted transfer of rights; (3) whether Openwave timely disclosed its
12
intent to rely on extrinsic evidence regarding the standing issue; and (4) whether Openwave
13
witnesses are knowledgeable regarding Section 7.3. At trial, Openwave will not be allowed to
14
introduce evidence to show that the exceptions in Section 7.3 of the IPLA were not intended to
15
cover the 2009 transaction between Purple Labs and Esmertec. Indeed, the threshold question of
16
Myriad’s standing to assert rights under the IPLA no longer will be part of the trial.
17
18
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Myriad’s first motion in limine is GRANTED. Additionally,
19
partial summary judgment on the threshold issue of Myriad’s standing to assert rights under the
20
June 2008 agreement between Openwave and Purple Labs is GRANTED in favor of Myriad and
21
against Openwave. This order finds that the 2009 transaction between Purple Labs and Esmertec
22
does not impair Myriad’s standing to assert rights under the IPLA.
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26
Dated: August 19, 2011.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
27
28
3
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?