Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 264

Joint MOTION for Summary Judgment Regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 6,282,646 and 7,380,116 by Apple, Inc.. Responses due by 4/2/2012 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Summary Judgment re 646 and 116 Patents)(Pace, Christopher)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 1:10cv023580-Civ-RNS-TEB
MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.,
Plaintiff,

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

v.
APPLE INC.,
Defendant.
APPLE INC.,
Counterclaim Plaintiff,
v.
MOTOROLA, INC. and
MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.,
Counterclaim Defendants.

JOINT MOTION REGARDING U.S. PATENT NOS. 6,282,646 AND 7,380,116
Apple Inc. (“Apple”), by and through counsel, and Motorola Solutions,
Inc. (f/k/a Motorola, Inc.) and Motorola Mobility, Inc. (collectively, “Motorola”), by and
through counsel, hereby move for the entry of summary judgment of non-infringement of
U.S. Patent Nos. 6,282,646 (“the ’646 patent”) and 7,380,116 (“the ’116 patent”) based
on the rulings in the Court’s Claim Construction Order of December 1, 2011 (“Markman
Order”). Apple acknowledges that the Court’s constructions in the Markman Order of
terms from the ’646 and ’116 patents were case-dispositive as to Apple’s causes of action
based on the ’646 and ’116 patents because, given those constructions, Apple cannot
establish that Motorola infringed the asserted claims in the ’646 and ’116 patents. This

1

joint motion is made subject to Apple’s reservation of all rights to appeal the Court’s
claim constructions with respect to the ’646 and ’116 patents.
Motorola agrees that its corresponding counterclaims seeking declaratory
judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the ’646 and ’116 patents should be
dismissed without prejudice. This stipulation of dismissal without prejudice is made
subject to Motorola’s reservation of rights to reassert these or other counterclaims and
defenses relating to the asserted patents should Apple’s infringement claims regarding the
’646 and ’116 patents be revived or reasserted for any reason (including, but not limited
to, modification of the Court’s claim constructions on appeal resulting in a remand to the
district court.)

Nothing in this stipulation shall preclude Motorola from appealing any

ruling that it could otherwise have appealed had this stipulation not been entered.
Furthermore, nothing in this stipulation precludes either party from
moving for summary judgment with respect to any issue remaining before this Court.
Dated: March 14, 2012

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Edward M. Mullins
Edward M. Mullins
[e-mail]
Hal M. Lucas
[e-mail]
Astigarrage Davis Mullins & Grossman,
P.A.
701 Brickell Avenue, 16th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

/s/ Christopher R. J. Pace
Christopher R. J. Pace
[e-mail]
Edward Soto
[e-mail]
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1200
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Attorneys for Motorola Mobility, Inc.
and Motorola Solutions, Inc.

Attorneys for Apple Inc.

2

Of Counsel:
Mark D. Baker
[e-mail]
Edward J. DeFranco
[e-mail]
Alexander Rudis
[e-mail]
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, New York 10010
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Of Counsel:
Matthew D. Powers
[e-mail]
Steven Cherensky
[e-mail]
Tensegrity Law Group LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 650-802-6001
Mark G. Davis
[e-mail]
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
1300 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Charles K. Verhoeven
[e-mail]
David A. Perlson
[e-mail]
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Robert T. Haslam
[e-mail]
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

David A. Nelson
[e-mail]
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
500 West Madison Street, Suite 2450
Chicago, IL 60661
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Motorola Mobility, Inc. and
Motorola Solutions, Inc.

Robert D. Fram
[e-mail]
Christine Saunders Haskett
[e-mail]
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
One Front Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Apple Inc.

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 14, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing
document is being served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified on
the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of
Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those
counsel or parties who are not authorized to received electronically Notices of Electronic
Filing.
/s/ Christopher R. J. Pace
Christopher R. J. Pace (Fla. Bar No. 0721166)

4

SERVICE LIST
Motorola Mobility, Inc. versus Apple Inc.
Case No. 1:10cv023580-Civ-RNS
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
Edward M. Mullins
Fla. Bar No. 863920
[e-mail]
ASTIGARRAGA DAVIS MULLINS & GROSSMAN, P.A.
701 Brickell Avenue, 16th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Of Counsel:
Charles K. Verhoeven
David A. Perlson
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 93111
[phone]
Raymond N. Nimrod
Edward J. DeFranco
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
[phone]
David A. Nelson
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
500 West Madison Street, Suite 2450
Chicago, IL 60661
[phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Motorola Mobility, Inc. and Motorola, Inc.
Electronically served via email

5