Network-1 Technologies, Inc v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. et al
ORDER ADOPTING 954 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS and GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART 825 Defendants' (Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company and Hewlett-Packard Company) Motion for Summary Judgment of FRAND Obligation. Signed by Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III on 10/16/2017. (rlf)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC,
ALCATEL-LUCENT USA, INC. ET AL.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:11-CV-00492-RWS
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The above-entitled and numbered civil action was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge K. Nicole Mitchell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. The Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (“Report,” Docket No. 954), which contains her findings, conclusions, and
recommendations regarding Defendants Hewlett-Packard Company and Hewlett Packard
Enterprise Company’s (collectively, “HP”) Motion for Summary Judgment of FRAND Obligation
(Docket No. 825), has been presented for consideration. The Report recommends that HP’s Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment be granted-in-part and denied-in-part. No objections were filed.
Accordingly, the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation for clear
error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
The Report notes that Network-1 agreed to four contentions in HP’s motion: (1) that a
contract exists between Merlot Communications, Inc. (“Merlot”) and the Institute of Electrical and
Electronic Engineers (“IEEE”) to license the ’930 Patent on the terms stated in the 2003 letter of
assurance (“LOA”); (2) that Network-1 is bound by the LOA submitted to the IEEE for the ’930
Patent; (3) that HP, an IEEE member, is an intended third-party beneficiary of the contract between
Network-1 and the IEEE; and (4) that the LOA applies to the 802.3-2008 Standard including the
802.3af amendment. See Docket No. 954 at 2; Docket No. 852 at 3. Network-1 disputes whether
the contract includes HP’s asserted FRAND terms, and HP contends that there is no difference
between “FRAND” terms and the terms of the 2003 LOA. Docket No. 852 at 3; Docket No. 954
at 3 (citing Docket No. 931 at 22–24). The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion
that any disputes regarding whether the LOA obligation and HP’s definition of FRAND are the
same are questions for the jury. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the findings and conclusions of
the Magistrate Judge as those of the Court. It is
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of FRAND Obligation (Docket
No. 825) is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART.
SIGNED this 16th day of October, 2017.
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 2 of 2
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?