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.

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
NON-INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 6,282,646 AND 7,380,116
The Court, after considering the parties’ Joint Motion Regarding U.S.
Patent Nos. 6,282,646 (“the ’646 patent”) and 7,380,116 (“the ’116 patent”) and upon a
review of the record, finds that good cause exists to grant summary judgment as follows:
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, this Court hereby
GRANTS summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Motorola Solutions, Inc.
(f/k/a Motorola, Inc.) and Motorola Mobility, Inc. (collectively, “Motorola”) as to the
asserted claims of the ’646 and ’116 patents, as construed by the Court’s Claim
Construction Order of December 1, 2011 (“Markman Order”). Apple Inc. (“Apple”) has

1

acknowledged, and the Court accepts, 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.
Apple has reserved its right to appeal the Court’s claim constructions as to the ’646 and
’116 patents.
Motorola’s counterclaims with respect to the ’646 and ’116 patents are
dismissed without prejudice. Motorola has reserved its right to reassert these or other
counterclaims and defenses relating to the asserted patents should Apple’s infringement
claims regarding the asserted 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). Motorola has further reserved its rights to appeal any ruling
that it could otherwise have appealed had this summary judgment of non-infringement of
the ’646 and ’116 patents not been entered.
Neither party shall be precluded by this Order from moving for summary
judgment with respect to any issue remaining before this Court.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, on this __ day of March, 2012.

THE HONORABLE ROBERT N. SCOLA, JR.
United States District Judge

Copies furnished to:
All counsel of record

2