Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation

Filing 62

Defendant's MOTION to Change Venue Defendant's Motion to Transfer This Action to the Western District of Washington and Accompanying Memorandum of Law by Microsoft Corporation. Responses due by 6/6/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A David Kaefer's Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1 to David Kaefer's Declaration, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 2 to David Kaefer's Declaration, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 3 to David Kaefer's Declaration, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit B Curtis Miner's Declaration, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 1 to Curtis Miner's Declaration, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 2 to Curtis Miner's Declaration, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 3 to Curtis Miner's Declaration, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 4 to Curtis Miner's Declaration, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 5 to Curtis Miner's Declaration, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit 6 to Curtis Miner's Declaration, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit 7 to Curtis Miner's Declaration, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit 8 to Curtis Miner's Declaration, # 14 Exhibit Exhibit 9 to Curtis Miner's Declaration, # 15 Exhibit Exhibit 10 to Curtis Miner's Declaration, # 16 Exhibit Exhibit 11 to Curtis Miner's Declaration, # 17 Exhibit Exhibit 12 to Curtis Miner's Declaration, # 18 Exhibit Exhibit 13 to Curtis Miner's Declaration, # 19 Exhibit Exhibit 14 to Curtis Miner's Declaration, # 20 Exhibit Exhibit 15 to Curtis Miner's Declaration, # 21 Exhibit Exhibit 16 to Curtis Miner's Declaration, # 22 Exhibit Group Exhibit C to Motion, # 23 Exhibit Group Exhibit D to Motion)(Miner, Curtis)

Download PDF
Case 2:10-cv-01577-RSM Document 33 Filed 11/08/10 Page 1 of 5 The Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 8 MICROSOFT CORPORATION, CASE NO. C10-01577-RSM 9 Plaintiff, 10 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY ACTION v. 11 12 Note on Motion Calendar: November 8, 2010 MOTOROLA, INC., and MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 STIPULATION Plaintiff Microsoft Corporation and Defendants Motorola, Inc., and Motorola Mobility, 17 Inc., collectively (“the Parties”), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby 18 stipulate and agree as follows: 19 1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659, the Parties stipulate to a stay of proceedings in the 20 above-captioned matter pending a final determination of the United States International Trade 21 Commission (“ITC”) in In the Matter of Certain Mobile Devices, Associated Software, and 22 Components Thereof, Investigation No. 337-TA-744. 23 2. On October 1, 2010, Plaintiff Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) filed a 24 Complaint in this matter. Five days later, on October 6, 2010, Microsoft filed an Amended 25 Complaint, which added Motorola Mobility, Inc. (“Motorola Mobility”) as a defendant. Microsoft 26 served its Amended Complaint on Motorola, Inc. (“Motorola”) on October 8, 2010 and on STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY ACTION - 1 CASE NO. C10-01577-RSM SUMMIT LAW GROUP PLLC 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682 Telephone: (206) 676-7000 Fax: (206) 676-7001 Case 2:10-cv-01577-RSM Document 33 Filed 11/08/10 Page 2 of 5 1 Motorola Mobility on October 28, 2010. In a Stipulation filed on October 27, 2010, the Parties 2 agreed that Motorola and Motorola Mobility’s deadline to answer or otherwise move the Court for 3 relief in this action should be extended from October 29, 2010 to November 22, 2010. The Court 4 so Ordered this extension on November 1, 2010. ECF No. 32. 5 3. The Amended Complaint alleges that Motorola and Motorola Mobility have 6 infringed, either directly or indirectly, nine Microsoft patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 5,579,517; 7 5,758,352; 6,621,746; 6,826,762; 6,909,910; 7,644,376; 5,665,133; 6,578,054; and 6,370,566. See 8 Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 11-12, 14-15, 17-18, 20-21, 23-24, 26-27, 29-30, 32-33, and 35-36. The 9 same day Microsoft filed its initial Complaint in this action—October 1, 2010—it also filed a 10 Complaint with the ITC against Motorola and in connection with the same nine Microsoft patents, 11 asserting that Motorola has infringed these patents and has therefore engaged in unfair competition 12 or violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337. 13 4. Eleven days later, on October 12, 2010, Microsoft amended its ITC Complaint to 14 add Motorola Mobility as a respondent. On November 1, 2010, the ITC instituted an investigation 15 based on the Amended Complaint and formally named Motorola and Motorola Mobility as 16 respondents. Thus, at present, Motorola and Motorola Mobility are both defendants in this civil 17 action and respondents in the ITC proceeding. 18 5. 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a) provides that “[i]n a civil action involving parties that are also 19 parties to a proceeding before the [ITC] under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, at the request 20 of a party to the civil action that is also a respondent in the proceeding before the Commission, the 21 district court shall stay, until the determination of the Commission becomes final, proceedings in 22 the civil action with respect to any claim that involves the same issues involved in the proceeding 23 before the commission,” so long as “such request is made within (1) 30 days after the party is 24 named as a respondent in the proceeding before the Commission, or (2) 30 days after the district 25 court action is filed, whichever is later.” 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a) (emphasis added). Motorola and 26 Motorola Mobility are parties to the above-captioned civil action and also the respondents in In the STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY ACTION - 2 CASE NO. C10-01577-RSM SUMMIT LAW GROUP PLLC 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682 Telephone: (206) 676-7000 Fax: (206) 676-7001 Case 2:10-cv-01577-RSM Document 33 Filed 11/08/10 Page 3 of 5 1 Matter of Certain Mobile Devices, Associated Software, and Components Thereof, an ITC 2 proceeding involving the same issues involved here—the putative infringement of nine Microsoft 3 patents. 6. 4 This requested stipulation is timely. The 30-day period under 28 U.S.C. 5 § 1659(a)(1) did not begin to run until November 1, 2010—the day Motorola and Motorola 6 Mobility were “named as [] respondent[s] in the proceeding before the Commission.” 28 U.S.C. 7 § 1659(a)(1); see 19 C.F.R. § 210.3 (defining “respondent” as “any person named in a notice of 8 investigation”). 9 7. 10 11 Accordingly, the Parties respectfully request that the Court enter an Order directing that: A. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a) et seq. and the Court’s inherent power to 12 control its docket, this civil action is stayed until a final determination of the ITC proceeding in In 13 the Matter of Certain Mobile Devices, Associated Software, and Components Thereof, 14 Investigation No. 337-TA-744; 15 B. 16 17 The deadline for Motorola and Motorola Mobility to move, answer, or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint is vacated; and C. Within 30 days of a final determination of the ITC proceeding in In the 18 Matter of Certain Mobile Devices, Associated Software, and Components Thereof, Investigation 19 No. 337-TA-744, and the associated expiration of this stay, the Parties shall confer with each other 20 and contact the Court for purposes of setting a Scheduling Order, which shall include the setting of 21 a new deadline for Motorola and Motorola Mobility to move, answer, or otherwise respond to 22 Microsoft’s Amended Complaint. 23 24 25 26 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY ACTION - 3 CASE NO. C10-01577-RSM SUMMIT LAW GROUP PLLC 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682 Telephone: (206) 676-7000 Fax: (206) 676-7001 Case 2:10-cv-01577-RSM Document 33 DATED this 8th day of November, 2010. 1 2 SUMMIT LAW GROUP PLLC DANIELSON HARRIGAN LEYH & TOLLEFSON LLP By /s/ Philip S. McCune Philip S. McCune, WSBA #21081 Lynn M. Engel, WSBA #21934 philm@summitlaw.com lynne@summitlaw.com By /s/ Christopher T. Wion Arthur W. Harrigan, Jr., WSBA #1751 Christopher T. Wion, WSBA #33207 arthurh@dhlt.com chrisw@dhlt.com 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Filed 11/08/10 Page 4 of 5 And by Edward J. DeFranco (pro hac vice) Quinn Emanuel 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010 (212) 849-7000 eddefranco@quinnemanuel.com Charles K. Verhoeven (pro hac vice) Quinn Emanuel 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 875-6600 charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com David Nelson (pro hac vice) Quinn Emanuel 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2450 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 705-7400 davenelson@quinnemanuel.com Attorneys for Defendants Motorola, Inc., and Motorola Mobility, Inc. T. Andrew Culbert, WSBA #35925 David E. Killough, WSBA #40185 Microsoft Corporation One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052 (425) 882-8080 andycu@microsoft.com davkill@microsoft.com Of Counsel: David T. Pritikin Richard A. Cederoth Douglas I. Lewis John W. McBride Sidley Austin LLP One South Dearborn Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 853-7000 dpritikin@sidley.com rcederoth@sidley.com dilewis@sidley.com jwmcbride@sidley.com Brian R. Nester Kevin C. Wheeler Sidley Austin LLP 1501 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 736-8000 bnester@sidley.com kwheeler@sidley.com 20 21 22 23 24 Attorneys for Plaintiff Microsoft Corporation 25 26 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY ACTION - 4 CASE NO. C10-01577-RSM SUMMIT LAW GROUP PLLC 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682 Telephone: (206) 676-7000 Fax: (206) 676-7001 Case 2:10-cv-01577-RSM Document 33 Filed 11/08/10 Page 5 of 5 ORDER 1 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 DATED this ____ day of ______________, 2010. 4 5 THE HONORABLE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 6 7 Presented by: 8 SUMMIT LAW GROUP PLLC DANIELSON HARRIGAN LEYH & TOLLEFSON LLP By /s/ Philip S. McCune Philip S. McCune, WSBA #21081 Lynn M. Engel, WSBA #21934 philm@summitlaw.com lynne@summitlaw.com By /s/ Christopher T. Wion Arthur W. Harrigan, Jr., WSBA #1751 Christopher T. Wion, WSBA #33207 arthurh@dhlt.com chrisw@dhlt.com 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And by T. Andrew Culbert, WSBA #35925 David E. Killough, WSBA #40185 Microsoft Corporation One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052 (425) 882-8080 andycu@microsoft.com davkill@microsoft.com Edward J. DeFranco (pro hac vice) Quinn Emanuel 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010 (212) 849-7000 eddefranco@quinnemanuel.com Charles K. Verhoeven (pro hac vice ) Quinn Emanuel 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 875-6600 charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com And by David T. Pritikin Richard A. Cederoth Douglas I. Lewis John W. McBride Sidley Austin LLP One South Dearborn Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 853-7000 dpritikin@sidley.com rcederoth@sidley.com dilewis@sidley.com jwmcbride@sidley.com David Nelson (pro hac vice) Quinn Emanuel 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2450 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 705-7400 davenelson@quinnemanuel.com Attorneys for Defendants Motorola, Inc., and Motorola Mobility, Inc. Brian R. Nester Kevin C. Wheeler Sidley Austin LLP 1501 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 736-8000 bnester@sidley.com kwheeler@sidley.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Microsoft Corporation 26 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY ACTION - 5 CASE NO. C10-01577-RSM SUMMIT LAW GROUP PLLC 315 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1000 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2682 Telephone: (206) 676-7000 Fax: (206) 676-7001

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?