Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Finally, the court notes that this court has strong interest in adjudicating the claims before it. The lawsuit was initiated by an American company (Microsoft) against another American company (Motorola). Central to the lawsuit are the October 21 and October 29 Letters — sent by Motorola from its Libertyville, Illinois office to Microsoft at its Redmond, Washington office — which Microsoft alleges breached Motorola’s commitments to the IEEE and ITU to grant licenses for all of its patents, both domestic and foreign, on RAND terms to all applicants on a worldwide basis. Accordingly, this court is fully capable of adjudicating the issues before it. To the contrary, the lawsuit lacks international issues and foreign government involvement. Applied Med. Distribution, 587 F.3d at 921 (<HOLDING>) (international quotations omitted). Thus, 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that a court is without jurisdiction to issue an injunction which would interfere with the rights of those who are not parties to the action (B) holding that an issue not raised on appeal is waived (C) holding that where there is no public international issue raised a foreign government is not involved in the litigation and the litigation involves private parties concerning disputes arising out of a contract not only would an antisuit injunction not have an intolerable impact on comity but allowing foreign suits to proceed in such circumstances would seriously harm international comity (D) holding res judicata did not bar current litigation when prior litigation between the parties involved one breach of obligation under a joint venture agreement and instant litigation was based upon a different cause of action from a subsequent interference with the same agreement (E) holding that comity concerns are implicated where plaintiffs ask the district court to contradict the conclusions of the hong kong courts and to overlook the respect that a foreign sovereign is due
Output (English): holding res judicata did not bar current litigation when prior litigation between the parties involved one breach of obligation under a joint venture agreement and instant litigation was based upon a different cause of action from a subsequent interference with the same agreement