Microsoft Mobile, Inc. et al v. InterDigital, Inc. et al

Filing 35

MEMORANDUM ORDER Denying 29 MOTION for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal (D.I. 29 ). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 6/13/2016. (nms)

Download PDF
Case 1:15-cv-00723-RGA Document 35 Filed 06/13/16 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 952 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MICROSOFT MOBILE INC. and MICROSOFT MOBILE OY, Plaintiffs; v. INTERDIGITAL, INC., INTERDIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., INTERDIGITAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, INTERDIGITAL PATENT HOLDINGS, INC., INTERDIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC., and IPR LICENSING, INC., CivilActionNo. 15-723-RGA . Defendants. MEMORANDUM ORDER Presently before the Court is Defendants' (collectively "JDC") Motion for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal. (D.1. 29). The issue has been fully briefed. (D.I. 30, 31, 32). For the reasons set forth herein, IDC's motion is DENIED. On April 13, 2016, the Court denied IDC's motions to dismiss and to strike. (D.I. 27). JDC now moves for certification of interlocutory appeal, specifically "request[ing] that the Court amend its [Order] by certifying for interlocutory appeal ... the following questions: (1) Whether a complaint alleging monopolization attributable to an allegedly false promise to license standards-essential patents on FRAND terms states a claim under Sherman Act Section 2 without identification of any patent that is, in fact, essential to a standard; and (2) Whether a complaint alleging monopolization based on alleged abuse of standards-essential patents- is barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine when the complaint relies on non-sham patent enforcement conduct as the primary cause of the alleged antitrust violation." (D.1. 29). 1 Case 1:15-cv-00723-RGA Document 35 Filed 06/13/16 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 953 "The decision of whether to grant leave to file an interlocutory appeal is 'informed by the criteria set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)."' Chase Bank USA, NA. v. Hess, 2011WL4459604, at *1 (D. Del. Sept. 26, 2011) (quoting In re Phi/a. Newspapers, LLC, 418 B.R. 548, 556 (E.D. Pa. 2009)). "Leave to file an interlocutory appeal may be granted when the order at issue (1) involves a controlling question of law upon which there is (2) substantial grounds for difference of opinion as to its correctness, and (3) if appealed immediately, may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." In re SemCrude, L.P., 407 B.R. 553, 556-57 (D. Del. 2009) (citing Katz v. Carte Blanche Corp., 496 F.2d 747, 754 (3d Cir. 1974)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). "Interlocutory appeal is meant to be used sparingly and only in exceptional cases where the interests cutting in favor of immediate appeal overcome the presumption against piecemeal litigation." DeLalla v. Hanover Ins., 2010 WL 3908597, at *3 (D.N.J. Sept. 30, 2010). IDC seeks appeal on two bases, neither of which satisfies the criteria set forth in§ 1292(b). IDC contends that Microsoft did not allege sufficient facts to sustain a § 2 monopolization claim. Even assuming that this is a controlling question oflaw, I do not believe that there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion on this question. The Third Circuit's decision in Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 501 F .3d 297 (3d Cir. 2007), is squarely on point and is controlling. Additionally, neither basis, if appealed immediately, would "materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." In re SemCrude, 407 B.R. at 557. IDC seeks appeal from a denial of a motion to dismiss. Even if the motion to dismiss were eventually granted, Microsoft would be afforded leave to amend its complaint. Further, as to the Noerr-Pennington 2 Case 1:15-cv-00723-RGA Document 35 Filed 06/13/16 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 954 question, since Microsoft alleged harms flowing from conduct outside of the scope of Noerr- Pennington immunity, even a successful dismissal would only narrow the scope of Microsoft's antitrust claim, rather than dispose of it entirely. I conclude that IDC has failed to present the exceptional circumstances which would justify an interlocutory appeal. For the reasons stated above, IDC's motion for certification of interlocutory appeal (D.I. 29) is DENIED. It is SO ORDERED this 3 11 day of June, 2016.

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?