F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T M I C R O S O F T C O R P O R A T I O N , a W a s hi ngt on c orpor a t i on, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. M OTOROLA, I NC. ; M OTOROLA MOB I L I T Y, I NC . ; GE NE R AL I NS T R UME NT C OR P OR AT I ON , D efen d an t s - A p p el l an t s. N o. 12- 35352 D. C. No . 2 : 1 0 - c v - 0 1 8 2 3 - J LR OP I NI ON

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on J a m e s L . R oba r t , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r11, 2012 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: W A L L A C E , T H O M A S , an d B E R Z O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es.

O pi ni on by Judg e B E R Z O N , C i rc ui tJudg e: In th is in terlo cu to ry ap p ea l, M o to ro la ap p ea ls fr o m th e d istrict co u rt’s pr e l i m i na ry i nj unc t i on t o e nj oi n M ot or ol at e m por a r i l y f r om e nf or c i ng apa t e nt i nj un ct i on thati tob t ai ned agai nstM i cr osofti n G erm any. W e r evi ew the di stri ct 

# FI LED SEP 28 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

court ’ s gra ntof a f

orei gn ant i -s ui ti nj un ct i on un der the defer ent i al abuse- ofd i s c r e t i o n s t a n d a r d , a n d a f f i rm. I . B AC KG RO UN D T he pa r t i e s a r e i nvol ve d i n ongoi ng c ontr a c ta nd pa t e ntl i t i ga t i on be f or e the di s tr i c tc our t . W e r e c i t e he r e onl y the f a c tua l a nd pr oc e dur a l hi s t ory m os tr e l e va nt to th is in te r lo c u to ry ap p e a l. A . S t an d ar d - s e t t i n g or gan i z at i on s an d i n t e l l e c t u alp r op e r t y l aw T he unde r l y i ng c a s e be f or e the di s tr i c tc our tc onc e rns how t o i nt e rpr e ta nd e nf or c e pa t e nt - hol de r s ’ c om m i tm e nt s t o i ndus try s t a nda r d- s e tt i ng or ga ni z a t i ons ( “ S S O s ” ) , w hi c h e s t abl i s h t e c hni c a l s pe c i f i c a t i ons t o e ns ur e tha tpr oduc t s f r om d if f e r e n t m a n u f

a c tu r e r s a r e c o m p a tib le w ith e a c h o th e r . Se e g e n e r a lly Ma rk A. L e m le y , I

nte l l e c tual

P r ope r t y R i ght s and Standar d- Se t t i ng O r gani z at i ons , 90 C a l i f . L . R e v. 1889 ( 2002) . S pe c i f i c a l l y , the c a s e i nvol ve s the H . 264 vi de o c odi ng s t a nda r d s e tby I nt e rna t i ona l T e l e c om m uni c a t i ons U ni on ( “ I T U ” ) , a nd the 802. 11 w i r e l e s s l oc a l a r e ane tw ork s t a nda r d s e tby the I ns t i tut e of E l e c tr i c a l a nd E l e c tr oni c s E ngi ne e r s ( “ I E E E ” ) . T hi s appe a l i m pl i c a t e s pr i m a r i l y the H . 264 s t a nda r d. S t a nda r ds pr ovi de m a ny be ne f i t s f ort e c hnol ogy c ons um e r s , i nc l udi ng not j us ti nt e r ope r abi l i ty buta l s o l ow e rpr oduc tc os t s a nd i nc r e a s e d pr i c e c om pe t i t i on.3

See A pp l e, Inc. v. Mot orola Mob i l i t y, Inc. , 2 0 1 1 W L 7 3 2 4 5 8 2 , at* 1 (W . D . W i s. June 7, 20 11 ). T he ca t ch w i th st andards “ i s thati tm aybe neces sa ryt o u se pat ent ed te c h n o lo g y in o r d e rto p r a c tic e th e m .” I d. A s a r e s ul t , s t a nda r ds thr e a t e n t o e ndow ho l ders of st andard-es se nt i al pat ent s w i th d i spropo rt i on at e m arketpo w er . In th e o ry , o n c e a s ta n d a r d h a s g a in e d s u c h w id e s p r e a d a c c e p ta n c e th a t c o m p lia n c e is e f f e c t i ve l y r e qui r e d t o c om pe t e i n a pa r t i c ul a rm a rke t , a ny one hol di ng as t a nda r de s s e nt i a l pa t e ntc oul d e xtr a c tunr e a s onabl y hi gh r oy a l t i e s f r om s uppl i e r s of s t a nda r d- c om pl i a ntpr oduc t s a nd s e rvi c e s . T hi s pr obl e m i s a f orm of “ pa t e nt ho l du p. ” See general l

y M ark A . L em l ey, T

e n T hi ngs to D o A bout

P ate nt H oldup of Standar ds (

A nd O ne N

ot T o) , 4 8 B .C . L . R e v . 1 4 9 ( 2 0 0 7 ) . M any S S O s tryt o m i t i gat e the threa tof pat entho l du p b y r equi ri ng m em bers w h o h o ld I P r ig h ts in s ta n d a r d - e s s e n tia l p a te n ts to a g r e e to lic e n s e th o s e p a te n ts to al l com er s on t erm s thatar e “ re as on abl e a nd no nd i sc ri m i nat ory, ” or “ R A N D . ” See L e m le y , I

n te lle c tu a l P r o

p e r ty R ig h ts , 90 C al i f. L . R ev. at19 02 , 19 06 . F or exam pl e, co n sid erth e I T U , w h o se H .2 6 4 stan d ar d is im p li ca ted in th is ap p ea l. T h e I T U ’s C o m m o n P a te n t P o lic y ( th e “I T U P o lic y ” ) p r o v id e s th a t “a p a te n t e m b o d ie d f u lly orpa r t l y i n a [ s t a nda r d] m us tbe a c c e s s i bl e t o e ve ry body w i thoutundue constra i nt s. ” A nyon e w ho ow ns a pat entdecl ar ed es se nt i al t o an IT U st andard m u s t s u b m it ad e c la r a tio n to th e I T U s ta tin g w h e th e rit is w illin g to “n e g o tia teT he IT U ’ s pol i cydo cum ent s use the t erm “ re com m endat i on ” r ather than 1 “ s t a nda r d. ” “ I S O C / I E C ” r e f e r s t o the I nt e rna t i ona l O r ga ni s a t i on f or S t a nda r di z a t i on a nd the I nt e rna t i ona l E l e c tr ot e c hni c a l C om m i s s i on, w i th w hi c h the I T U j oi nt l y de ve l ope d the H . 264 s t a nda r d. 4 l i c e ns e s w i th othe rpa r t i e s on anon- di s c r i m i na t ory ba s i s on r e a s onabl e t e rm s a nd c o n d itio n s .” I f

a “p a te n t h o ld e ris n o t w illin g to c o m p ly ” w ith th e r e q u ir e m e n t to ne got i a t e l i c e ns e s w i th a l l s e e ke r s , the n the s t a nda r d “ s ha l l noti nc l ude pr ovi s i ons d e p e n d in g o n th e p a te n t.” P ursuantt o these procedural re qu i re m ent s, M ot orol a has subm i tt ed n u me r o u s d e c l a r a t i o n s t o th e I TU s t a t i n g th a ti tw i l l g r a n tl i c e n s e s o n RA N D t e rms fo r i t s H . 2 6 4 -essen t i al p at en t s. A typ i cal su ch d ecl arat i o n p ro v i d es:

T he P a t e ntH ol de rw i l l gr a nta l i c e ns e t o a n unr e s tr i c t e d num be rof appl i c a nt s on aw or l dw i de , non- di s c r i m i na t oryba s i s a nd on re as on abl e t erm s a nd cond i t i on s t o u se the pat ent ed m at er i al nece ss ary i n or de rt o m a nuf

a c tur e , us e , a nd/ ors e l l i m pl e m e nt a t i ons of the above I T U - T R e c om m e nda t i on | I S O C / I E C I nt e rna t i ona l S t a nda r d. 1 T he I T U P ol i c y doe s nots pe c i f y how t o de t e rm i ne R A N D t e rm s , orhow court s s ho ul d adj ud i ca t e di sput es betw ee n p at ent -hol ders and w ou l d-be l i ce nsors unde raR A N D c om m i tm e nt . T o the c ontr a ry , the I T U P ol i c y i nc l ude s the f o llo w in g d is c la im e r :

[S t an d ard s] are d raw n u p b y t ech n i cal an d n o tp at en tex p ert s; th u s, they m ayno tnece ss ar i l y be very f am i l i arw i th the com pl ex i nt ernat i on al l egal si tuat i on of i nt el l ec tual prop erty r i gh t s s uch as p a te n ts , e tc . . . .5 . . . . . . . T h e d e ta ile d a rr a n g e m e n ts a r is in g f r o m p a te n ts ( lic e n s in g , ro yal t i es, et c. ) are l eftt o th e p art i es co n cern ed , as th ese arran g em en t s m ig h t d if f e rf r o m c a s e to c a s e . T he IT U P ol i cyal so di sc l ai m s a ny rol e f or the organi za t i on i n n egot i at i ng l i ce nses o rin “s e ttlin g d is p u te s o n P a te n ts ,” s ta tin g , “th is s h o u ld b e le f t — a s in th e p a s t — to th e p a r tie s c o n c e rn e d .” F in a lly , th e I T U f o rm th a t p a te n t- h o ld e r s u s e to s u b m it l i ce nsi ng decl ar at i on s i ncl ud es the ca veat : “ T hi s dec l ar at i on do es no tre pres entan a c tu a l g r a n t o f

a lic e n s e .” C our t s a nd c om m e nt a t or s a r e di vi de d a s t o how , i f a ta l l , R A N D l i c e ns i ng di sput es shou l d b e s ett l ed. R el at edl y, som e c om m ent at ors have s ug gest ed that b e c a u s e o f

th e R A N D lic e n s in g c o m m itm e n t, in ju n c tiv e r e lie f

is a n in ap p r o p r ia te r e m e d y f o rin f r in g e m e n t o f

s ta n d a r d - e s s e n tia l p a te n ts . Se e , e . g. , L e m le y , T en T hi ngs , 48 B . C . L . R e v. a t167 ( “ D e ny i ng [ i nj unc t i ve ] r e l i e f i s the m os tpow e r f

ul w a y t o p r e v e n tp a t e n th o l d u p [ . ] ” ) . J u d g e Po s n e r , s i tt i n g b y d e s i g n a t i o n o n th e U . S. D i stri ctC o u rtfo r th e N o rth ern D i stri cto f Il l i n o i s, recen t l y h el d i n a d i fferen tcase i nv ol vi ng M ot orol a- ow ned st andard-es se nt i al pat ent s f or w hi ch M ot orol a had m a d e aR A N D c o m m itm e n t th a t th e c o u r t w o u ld n o t

be j us t i f i e d i n e nj oi ni ng A ppl e [ the pl a i nt i f f i n tha tc a s e ] f

r om in f r in g in g [ th e p a te n t a t is s u e ] u n le s s A p p le r e f u s e s to p a y a r o y a ltyInst ea d o f R A N D , som e c ou rt s a nd com m ent at ors use the al t ernat i ve, 2 l e ga l l y e qui va l e ntabbr e vi a t i on “ F R A N D , ” f or“ f a i r , r e a s onabl e , a nd nondi sc ri m i nat ory r at es . ” 6

th a t m e e ts th e F R A N D r e q u ir e m e n t. B y c o m m ittin g to lic e n s e its 2 p a te n ts o n F R A N D te rm s , M o to r o lac o m m itte d to lic e n s e th e [ p a te n t] to a n y o n e w illin g to p a y a F R A N D r o y a lty a n d th u s im p lic itly a c k n o w le d g e d th a t ar o y a lty is a d e q u a te c o m p e n s a tio n f o ra lic e n s e to u s e th a t p a te n t. App l e, Inc. v. Mot orola, Inc. , — F . S upp. 2d — , 2012 W L 2376664 ( N . D . I l l . J une 22 , 20 12 ), at*1 2 (P osner, J. ). M ore genera l l y, Just i ce K ennedy has s ug gest ed that i nj un ct i on s a gai nstpat enti nfri ng em ent“ m ayno tse rve the pu bl i c i nt er es t ” i n cas es w he r e “ the pa t e nt e d i nve nt i on i s buta s m a l l c om pone ntof the pr oduc tthe c om pa ni e s s e e k t o pr oduc e a nd the thr e a tof a n i nj unc t i on i s e m pl oy e d s i m pl y f or un du e l ever age i n n egot i at i on s. ” eBa y I n c . v . Me r cEx c h a n g e , L. L. C. , 547 U . S . 388, 39 6-97 (200 6) (K ennedy, J. , concurri ng ). B . T h e U . S . c on t r ac t l i t i gat i on In O ct o b er 2 0 1 0 , M o t o ro l a sen tM i cro so fttw o l ett ers o fferi n g t o l i cen se c e r t a i n of

i t s s t a nda r d- e s s e nt i a l pa t e nt s . O f r e l e va nc e t o thi s appe a l i s the H . 264 le tte r , s e n t o n O c to b e r2 9 , 2 0 1 0 . T h e le tte rp r o p o s e d a r o y a lty o f “2 .2 5 % p e ru n it” f ore a c h s t a nda r d- c om pl i a ntpr oduc t , “ s ubj e c tt o agr a ntba c k l i c e ns e ” of M ic r o s o f t’s s ta n d a r d - e s s e n tia l p a te n ts , “b a s e d o n th e p r ic e o f th e e n d p r o d u c t ( e .g ., e a c h X box 360 pr oduc t , e a c h P C / l apt op, e a c h s m a r tphone , e t c . ) a nd notonT he E ur ope a n P a t e ntC onve nt i on a l l ow s appl i c a nt s t o f i l e pa t e nt 3 appl i ca t i on s w i th the E urop ea n P at entO ff i ce (“ E P O ”) , desi gn at i ng for w hi ch c ontr a c t i ng s t a t e s the pa t e nti s s ought . I f the E P O gr a nt s a E ur ope a n pa t e nt , the grantdo es no tre sul ti n a si ng l e, tra nsnat i on al pat ent , bu tra ther c re at es an i n d ep en d en t , n at i o n al l y-en fo rceab l e p at en tw i th i n each o f th e d esi g n at ed st at es, w i th “ the e f

f e c tof a nd . . . s ubj e c tt o the s a m e c ondi t i ons a s a na t i ona l pa t e nt gr a nt e d by tha tS t a t e , unl e s s thi s C onve nt i on pr ovi de s othe rw i s e . ” E ur ope a n P a t e nt C on vent i on art . 2, O ct . 5, 19 73 . Infr i ng em entcl ai m s, for i nst ance , m ustbe l i t i gat ed in d e p e n d e n tly w ith in e a c h c o u n try u n d e re a c h c o u n try ’s p a te n t la w . Se e id. a r t. 64 (3). T h e p refi x “ E P ” d en o t es th atth ese are E u ro p ean p at en t s.

4 7 com po nentsoftw ar e ( e. g. , X bo x 3 60 sy st em softw ar e, W i nd ow s 7 softw ar e, W in d o w s P h o n e 7 s o f

tw a r e , e tc .) .” I t n o te d in c lo s in g : “M o to r o law ill le a v e th is o f f e ro p e n f o r2 0 d a y s . P le a s e c o n f

irm w h e th e rM ic r o s o f

t a c c e p ts th e o f

f e r .” A ppe nde d t o the l e tt e rw a s a “ non- e xha us t i ve l i s t ” of the U . S . a nd i nt e rna t i ona l pa t e nt s tha tM ot or ol ade c l a r e s tha ti tow ns a nd tha ta r e e s s e nt i a l t o the H . 2 6 4 st an d ard , an d th atw o u l d b e “ i n cl u d ed i n th e l i cen se” b ei n g o ffered . T h e l i st c o m p r is e d n o t ju s t U .S . p a te n ts b u t a ls o n u m e r o u s p a te n ts g r a n te d o rf ile d in f or e i gn j ur i s di c t i ons , i nc l udi ng A us tr a l i a , C a na da , C hi na , the E ur ope a n P a t e nt C onve nt i on, F r a nc e , G e rm a ny , G r e a tB r i t a i n, I r e l a nd, J apa n, K or e a , M e xi c o, the

3 N etherl ands, N orw ay , S ou th K orea , S w eden, and T ai w an. A m on g these w er e G e rma n p a t e n t s n u mb e r e d EP0 5 3 8 6 6 7 ( “ ’ 6 6 7 ” ) a n d EP0 6 1 5 3 8 4 ( “ ’ 3 8 4 ” ) , a n d U . S. pat ent s 7, 31 0, 37 4 (“ ’ 37 4”); 7, 31 0, 37 5 (“ ’ 37 5”); and 7 , 31 0, 37 6 (“ ’ 37 6”). 4M ic r o s o f t’s a m e n d e d c o m p la in t o f F e b ru a ry 2 3 , 2 0 1 1 , is th e c u rr e n tly 5 o p e r a tiv e c o m p la in t. 8 O n N o v em b er 9 , 2 0 1 0 , M i cro so ftfi l ed a b reach -o f-co n tractsu i tag ai n st M ot orol a i n the U . S . D i stri ctC ou rtfor the W es t ern D i stri ctof W as hi ng t on , un der W as h in g to n state c o n trac t l aw . M icro so ft’s th eo ry o f liab il ity is th at M o to ro la’s 5 prop osed roya l ty t erm s w er e unreas on abl e, and thatM ot orol a’ s l ett er s there fore brea ched i t s c on tra ctual R A N D ob l i gat i on s t o the IE E E and the IT U , t o w hi ch M ic r o s o f t is a th ir d - p a r ty b e n e f

ic ia ry . T h e n e x t d a y , M o to r o laf ile d a p a te n t s u it a ga i ns tM i c r os of

ti n the U . S . D i s tr i c tC our tf orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W i s c ons i n, a l l e gi ng i nf

r i nge m e ntof

U . S . pa t e nt s ’ 374, ’ 375, a nd ’ 376. T he W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W i s c ons i n tr a ns f

e rr e d the pa t e ntc a s e t o the W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on, w he r e , i n J une 2011, the di s tr i c tc our trul e d tha tM ot or ol a ’ s pa t e ntc l a i m s w e r e not com pu l sorycoun t er cl ai m s t o M i cr osoft ’ s c on tra ctcl ai m s. N everthel es s, the court co n so l i d at ed th e tw o cases i n th e i n t eresto f j u d i ci al eco n o m y. I n F e brua ry 2012, the di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d pa r t i a l s um m a ry j udgm e ntf or M ic r o s o f t o n its c o n tr a c t c la im s , f in d in g th a t: ( 1) M ot or ol ae nt e r e d i nt o bi ndi ng c ontr a c tua l c om m i tm e nt s w i th the I E E E a n d th e I T U , c o m m ittin g to lic e n s e its d e c la r e d - e s s e n tia l p a te n ts o n R A N D te rm s a n d c o n d itio n s ; a n d ( 2 ) th a t M ic r o s o f t is a th ir d - p a r ty b e n e f i c i a ry o f Mo t o r o l a ’ s c o m m i tm e n t s t o th e I E E E a n d th e I T U.T h e tr a n s c r ip t o f th e s ta tu s c o n f

e r e n c e s ta te s , in r e le v a n t p a r t: 6 T H E C O U R T : Is the fi rs tpartof thatse nt ence al so ac cura t e, tha ty ou e nt e r e d i nt o bi ndi ng c ontr a c tua l c om m i tm e nt s w i th I E E E a nd IT U , co m m i tt i n g th o se t o th atR A N D p ro cess? [ C O U N S E L ] : W e l l , y e a h, tha ti s r e a l l y w ha tthe i s s ue i s , y our Ho n o r , i n t e rm s o f

wh a tth e a s s u r a n c e i s . T h e a s s u r a n c e i s th a twe w ou l d — thatM ot orol a a gree d t o l i ce nse tho se st andard ess ent i al p at en t s o n R A N D t erm s. T H E C O U R T : A l l I a m as ki ng i s — I thi nk you j ustagre ed w i th m e . I a m nota s ki ng y ou i f y ou di d i tornot , I a m j us ta s ki ng y ou i f th at ’ s w h atyo u are su p p o sed t o d o . I th i n k th e an sw er t o th ati s yes. [C O U N S E L ]: Y es . E n ter in to a licen se o n R A N D term s, th at’s r ig h t. T H E C O U R T : T h e s e c o n d p o in t th a t M ic r o s o f t a s k e d th e c o u r t t o d ec l ar e i s, and I w i l l qu ot e, “ M i cr osofti s athi rd-party benef i ci ary of M ot orol a’ s c om m i tm ent s t o the S S O s. ” O nce a gai n, l et ’ s s t ayaw ay fr om the preci se t erm s thatw er e off er ed and asked as aconceptual ma tt e r . I th i n k th e r e i s a l s o n o d i s a g r e e me n to n th a t . [ Co u n s e l ] , a m I c o rr e c t o n th a t? [ C O U N S E L ]: Y o u rH o n o r , th a t is c o rr e c t, w e w o u ld a g r e e th a t M i cr osoftca n fai rl y c l ai m t o b e the thi rd-party benef i ci ary of the as sura nce. 9 T he di s tr i c tc our tnot e d tha t , a ta s t a tus c onf e r e nc e e a r l i e ri n F e brua ry 2012,

“ M ot or ol as t a t e d on the r e c or d tha ti tdi d notdi s put e tha ti te nt e r e d i nt o the a f or e m e nt i one d bi ndi ng c ontr a c tua l c om m i tm e nt s w i th the I E E E a nd the I T U a nd th a t M ic r o s o f

t is a th ir d - p a r ty b e n e f

ic ia ry o f th e s e c o m m itm e n ts .” 6 T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie d M ic r o s o f t’s m o tio n f

o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t a s to w hether M ot orol a m ustoffe r R A N D t erm s i n i t s i ni t i al offe r l ett er s ( or w hether o n ly th e u ltim a te lic e n s e m u s t b e R A N D , w h ic h is M o to r o la ’s p o s itio n ) , a n d a s toT h e p la in tif f in th e G e rm a n s u it is G e n e r a l I n s tru m e n t C o rp o r a tio n , a 7 d e f e n d a n t in th is c a s e a n d a s u b s id ia ry o f th e M o to r o laG r o u p . T h e d e f e n d a n ts in the G erm an sui tar e M i cr osoftC orpo ra t i on , the pl ai nt i ff i n thi s c as e, as w el l as M i c r os of tD e ut s c hl a nd G m bH a nd M i c r os of tI r e l a nd O pe r a t i ons L t d. 10 w he the rM ot or ol a ’ s l e tt e r s of f e r i ng t o l i c e ns e i t s H . 264 a nd 802. 11 s t a nda r de s s e n t i a l p a t e n t s b r e a c h e d Mo t o r o l a ’ s R AN D o b l i g a t i o n s . T h e s e r e m a i n i n g two i s s ue s a r e s c he dul e d t o be tr i e d t o the be nc h i n N ove m be r2012. C . T h e G e r m an p at e n t l i t i gat i on I n J ul y 2011, s e ve r a l m onths i nt o the above - de s c r i be d dom e s t i c l i t i ga t i on, M ot orol a s ued M i cr osofti n the L andg er i chtM annh ei m , or M annh ei m R egi on al C ou rt , al l egi ng i nfri ng em entof the G erm an ’ 66 7 and ’ 38 4 p at ent s. In the G erm an 7 s ui t , M ot or ol as ought , a m ong othe rr e l i e f , a n i nj unc t i on pr ohi bi t i ng M i c r os of tf r om s e l l i ng a l l e ge dl y i nf

r i ngi ng pr oduc t s i n G e rm a ny , i nc l udi ng the M i c r os of tX box gam i ng sy st em and cert ai n M i cr osoftW i nd ow s s oftw ar e. O n M a y 2 , 2 0 1 2 , th e M a n n h e im C o u r t is s u e d its ru lin g . F ir s t, th e c o u r t h e ld thatM i cr osoftdi d n othave a l i ce nse t o u se M ot orol a’ s pat ent s. S ec on d, i tre j ec t ed the ar gu m entthatM ot orol a’ s R A N D com m i tm entt o the IT U cr ea t ed a c on tra ct e n f o r c e ab le b y M ic r o s o f

t, b e c a u s e G e rm a n la w d o e s n o t r e c o g n iz e th ir d - p a r ty c ontr a c tua l r i ght s . F i na l l y , the G e rm a n c our the l d tha tM i c r os of tha d i nf r i nge d the

’ 667 a nd ’ 384 pa t e nt s , a nd e nj oi ne d M i c r os of tf r om “ of f e r i ng, m a rke t i ng, us i ng orW e quo t e f rom the prel i m i narytra nsl at i on s of the G erm an courtorder 8 p r o v i d e d b y th e p a r t i e s t o th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t . Al th o u g h e a c h p a r ty s u b m i tt e d i t s o wn tr a ns l a t i on, the y do notdi f f e rs ubs t a nt i a l l y . T hi s quot e c om e s f r om the tr a ns l a t i on p r o v id e d b y M ic r o s o f

t. 11 i m por t i ng orpos s e s s i ng . . . i n the t e rr i t ory of the F e de r a l R e publ i c of G e rm a ny d e c o d e rap p a r a tu s ( in p a r tic u la rX b o x 3 6 0 ) ” ; f r o m “o f f e r in g a n d /o rs u p p ly in g in the t erri t ory of the F eder al R epub l i c of G erm any c om pu t ersoftw ar e ( i n p art i cul ar W in d o w s 7 a n d /o rI n te rn e t E x p lo r e r9 ) ” ; a n d “f r o m o f f e r in g a n d /o rs u p p ly in g in the t erri t ory of the F eder al R epub l i c of G erm any c om pu t ersoftw ar e ( i n p art i cul ar W in d o w s M e d iaP la y e r1 2 ) .” T h e G e rm a n c o u r t r e je c te d th e a r g u m e n t th a t a R A N D c o m m itm e n t o p e r a te s a s a “w a iv e ro f c la im s f o rin ju n c tiv e r e lie f

.” 8 T he G erm an i nj un ct i on i s notse l f- enforci ng . A cc ordi ng t o an exp ert decl ar at i on on G erm an l aw subm i tt ed by M ot orol a t o the di stri ctcourt , t o enforce the G e rm a n pa t e nti nj unc t i on, M ot or ol aw oul d ha ve t o pos ta s e c ur i ty bond c ove r i ng pot e nt i a l da m a ge s t o M i c r os of ts houl d the i nf

r i nge m e ntrul i ng be r e v e r s e d o n ap p e a l. M ic r o s o f t c o u ld th e n f

ile a m o tio n w ith th e G e rm a n ap p e lla te co u rtt o st ay th e i n

j u n ct i o n , w h i ch m o t i o n “ w o u l d b e g ran t ed i f th ere i s a re as on abl e l i kel i ho od of succ es s f or the appeal and i f e nforcement pendi ng appeal w o u ld c a u s e s ig n if

ic a n t h a rm .”12

A c c o r d in g to th e s a m e e x p e r t, M ic r o s o f t c o u ld a lte rn a tiv e ly a v o id e n f o r c e m e n t o f

th e in ju n c tio n p e n d in g ap p e a l b y f o llo w in g w h a t is k n o w n in G erm an l aw as “ the O rang e B oo k procedure, ” a ft erthe G erm an S up re m e C ou rt opi ni on tha ti ntr oduc e d i t . U nde rthi s pr oc e dur e , M i c r os of tw oul d ha ve t o m a ke

“ an un cond i t i on al offe r t o con cl ud e al i ce nse a gree m ent ” w i th M ot orol a. M i cr osoft c oul d i nc l ude i n i t s of

f e re i the ra s pe c i f

i c pr opos e d r oy a l ty r a t e , or“ apr ovi s i on ac cordi ng t o w hi ch the pat entho l der s hal l det erm i ne the approp ri at e r oyal ty r at e a t its f a ird is c r e tio n ,” s u b

je c t to G e rm a n ju d ic ia l r e v ie w . D . T h e an t i - s u i t i n j u n c t i on W hi l e the part i es w er e a w ai t i ng the G erm an court ’ s dec i si on , M i cr osoft a s k e d M o to r o la( th r o u g h a n e m a il e x c h a n g e b e tw e e n th e irla w y e r s ) to “a g r e e th a t it w oul d nots e e k e nf

or c e m e ntof

a G e rm a n i nj unc t i on pe ndi ng arul i ng on the R A N D r e l a t e d i s s ue s by J udge R oba r t , ” a nd “ of f e r e d t o pos ta bond of

$300 m illio n ” a g a in s t a n y p o s s ib le in ju ry to M o to r o la . A b s e n t s u c h a n a g r e e m e n t, M i c r os of ts a i d, i tw oul d a s k the di s tr i c tc our tt o e nj oi n M ot or ol af r om e nf or c i ng any G erm an i nj un ct i on thati tm i gh tob t ai n. M ot orol a r es po nd ed w i th “ surpri se [] thatM i cr osoftw ou l d ask a U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rtt o rul e on the prop ri ety of a re m edy i n G erm any, ” part i cul ar l y gi ven the avai l abi l i ty of the O r ange B ook procedure.13

O n M ar ch 28 , 20 12 , M i cr osoftm ov ed the di stri ctcourtfor at em po ra ry r e s tr a i ni ng or de r( “ T R O ” ) a nd pr e l i m i na ry i nj unc t i on t o e nj oi n M ot or ol af r om enforci ng any G erm an i nj un ct i ve re l i ef i tm i gh tob t ai n. O n A pri l 12 , 20 12 , af t er oral ar gu m enton the m ot i on , the di stri ctcourtgrant ed M i cr osoft ’ s m ot i on for a T R O , r e qui r i ng M i c r os of tt o pos ta $100 m i l l i on s e c ur i ty bond a s c ol l a t e r a l f ora ny dam ages t o M ot orol a. Itw as af t erthat , on M ay2, thatthe M annh ei m C ou rti ss ued i t s rul i ng. O n M ay14 , 20 12 , the di stri ctcourtconv ert ed the T R O i nt o the prel i m i nary i nj un ct i on ati ss ue i n thi s i nt er l ocut ory app ea l . T he prel i m i naryi nj un ct i on bars M ot orol a f

rom “ enforci ng any i nj un ct i ve re l i ef i tm ayre ce i ve i n the G erm an A c tio n w ith r e s p e c t to th e E u r o p e a n P a te n ts a t is s u e th e r e in ,” a n d “s h a ll r e m a in in ef fe ctun t i l [the di stri ctcourt ] i s abl e t o d et erm i ne w hether i nj un ct i ve re l i ef i s a n approp ri at e r em edy f

or M ot orol a t o see k w i th res pectt o M i cr osoft ’ s a l l eged in f r in g e m e n t o f

M o to r o la ’s s ta n d a r d e s s e n tia l p a te n ts .” T he di stri ctcourtexpl ai ned i t s r at i on al e f or grant i ng the i nj un ct i on as f ol l ow s . F i r s t , the di s tr i c tc our tc onc l ude d tha tthe pe ndi ng c o n tr a c t a c tio n b e f o r e it w oul d be di s pos i t i ve of the G e rm a n pate nt

a c tio n , “b e c a u s e th e E u r o p e a n P a te n ts ati ss ue i n the G erm an A ct i on w er e i ncl ud ed i n M ot orol a’ s O ct ob er29 L ett er of f e r i ng aw or l dw i de l i c e ns e f orM ot or ol a ’ s H . 264 S t a nda r d- e s s e nt i a l pa t e nt s , a nd14

be c a us e M ot or ol ac ontr a c t e d w i th the I T U t o l i c e ns e the E ur ope a n P a t e nt s on R A N D t erm s t o al l appl i ca nt s on a w orl dw i de basi s. ” S ec on d, the courtdet erm i ned thatthe G erm an ac t i on ra i se d “ concerns agai nsti ncon si st entj ud gm ent s, ” a nd that

“ the t i m i ng of

the f i l i ng of the G e rm a n A c t i on r a i s e s c onc e rns of f orum s hoppi ng an d d u p li ca ti v e a n d v ex atio u s lit ig atio n ,” p ar ti cu larly s in ce “M o to ro la’s com m i tm ent s t o the IT U i nv ol ved app roxi m at el y 100 M ot orol a- ow ned p at ent s, ye t M ot or ol a i nvoke d the G e rm a n A c t i on i m pl i c a t i ng onl y tw o . . . of the s e pa t e nt s a nd soug hti nj un ct i ve re l i ef

i n G erm any bef

ore [ the di stri ctcourt ] coul d adj ud i ca t e that pr e c i s e i s s ue . ” “ I n s um , ” the di s tr i c tc our tc onc l ude d, “ M ot or ol a ’ s a c t i ons ha ve f ru s tr a te d [ th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ] ab ility to a d ju d ic a te is s u e s p r o p e r ly b e f o r e it,” i.e ., th e p r o p r ie ty o f

in ju n c tiv e r e lie f

in th e R A N D c o n te x t. F in a lly , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t r e a s o n e d th a t th e in ju n c tio n ’s “im p a c t o n c o m ity w ou l d b e t ol er abl e, ” Appl i e d Me d. D is tr i b. C or p. v . Sur gi c al C o. , 587 F . 3d 909, 919 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) , be c a us e the G e rm a n a c tio n w a s f

ile d a f te rth e U .S . a c tio n ; th e “a n ti- s u it in ju n c tio n is lim ite d in sc op e t o enj oi ni ng M ot orol a f rom enforc i ng any i nj un ct i ve re l i ef thati tm ay r e c e iv e in th e G e rm a n A c tio n ,” b u t d o e s n o t o th e rw is e a f f e c t M o to r o la ’s ab ility to pu rs ue i t s G erm an pat entcl ai m s a gai nstM i cr osoft ; and “ [the di stri ctcourt ] has [ a] s tr o n g i n t e r e s ti n a d

j u d i c a t i n g th e c l a i ms b e f o r e i t , ” a s b o th p a r t i e s a r e U . S.15

c orpor a t i ons a nd the f

a c t s a ti s s ue i n the c ontr a c tdi s put e t ook pl a c e w i thi n the U n i t ed S t at es. O n M a y 16, 2012, M ot or ol af i l e d at i m e l y not i c e of

appe a l f r om the p r e lim in a ry in

ju n c tio n in th is c o u r t.

I I . J URI S DI CT I ON “N o t all ca se s in v o lv in g a p aten t-law claim fa ll w ith in th e F ed er al C ircu it ’s j uri sdi ct i on . ” H

olm es G roup , Inc. v. V

orna do A i r C i rc ulat i on Sys. , Inc. , 5 3 5 U . S. 82 6, 83 4 (20 02 ). T he F eder al C i rc ui thas j uri sdi ct i on ov eran i nt er l ocut ory app ea l o n ly if it w o u ld h a v e ju r is d ic tio n o v e ra f in a l ap p e a l in th e c a s e u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1295. 28 U . S . C . § 1292( c ) ( 1) . M i c r os of t ’ s c om pl a i nts ounds i n c ontr a c ta nd in v o k e s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d iv e r s ity ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 2 . W e th e r e f o r e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n o v e rth is in te r lo c u to ry ap p e a l u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 12 92 (a )( 1). I I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW W e r e vi e w a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f or e i gn a nt i - s ui ti nj unc t i on f orabus e of d is c r e tio n . Se e Appl i e d Me d. , 5 8 7 F .3 d at 9 1 3 . W e r ev iew th e d istrict co u rt’s fa ctual fi nd i ng s i n con nect i on w i th the i nj un ct i on for c l ea r e rr or, and i t s l egal in te rp r e ta tio n s d e n o v o . Se e id. “W h e n a d is tr ic t c o u r t m a k e s a n e rr o ro f la w , it is an abuse of di sc re t i on . ” I d.16

A b u s e - o f

- d is c r e tio n r e v ie w is h ig h ly d e f e r e n tia l to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. See U ni te d State s v . Hi nk

s on , 58 5 F . 3d 12 47 , 12 61 -62 (9th C i r. 20 09 ) ( en banc). U nd er th is s ta n d a r d o f

r e v ie w , w e m u s t “u p h o ld a d is tr ic t c o u r t d e te rm in a tio n th a t f a lls w i thi n abr oa d r a nge of pe rm i s s i bl e c onc l us i ons i n the abs e nc e of a n e rr one ous appl i ca t i on of l aw . ” G rantv. C i t y of L on g B each , 31 5 F . 3d 10 81 , 10 91 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 2 ) , am ended b

y 334 F . 3d 795 ( 9th C i r . 2003) ( or de r ) . W e r e ve r s e “ onl y w he n” w e a r e “ c onvi nc e d f

i rm l y tha tthe r e vi e w e d de c i s i on l i e s be y ond the pa l e of re as on abl e j ust i fi ca t i on un der the ci rc um st ance s. ” H arm an v. Apf

el , 211 F . 3d 1172, 1 1 7 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . IV . A N A L Y S IS “‘A f e d e r a l d is tr ic t c o u r t w ith ju r is d ic tio n o v e rth e p a r tie s h a s th e p o w e rto en j o i n th em fro m p ro ceed i n g w i th an act i o n i n th e co u rt s o f a fo rei g n co u n try, al tho ug h the po w ershou l d b e use d spari ng l y. ’ ” E . & J . G al lo W

i ne r y v . A ndi na Li c o r e s S. A. , 446 F . 3d 984, 989 ( 9th C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng Seat t l e T ot em s H ocke y C lub, I nc . v . N at ’ l H oc ke y L e ague , 6 5 2 F .2 d 8 5 2 , 8 5 5 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 1 ) ) . W e c la r if

ie d o u rf r a m e w o rk f

o re v a lu a tin g a f

o r e ig n a n ti- s u it in

ju n c tio n in G a llo , 446 F . 3d 984, a nd e l abor a t e d upon tha tf r a m e w ork i n Appl i e d Me di c al , 587 F . 3d 909. T oge the r , the s e c a s e s e s t abl i s h a thr e e - pa r ti nqui ry f ora s s e s s i ng the pr opr i e ty of

s uc h a n i nj unc t i on. F i r s t , w e de t e rm i ne “ w he the rornotthe pa r t i e s a ndI n Appl i e d Me di c al , w e m or e na rr ow l y de s c r i be d the s e c ond G al lo st ep as 9 a n i nqui ry i nt o “ w he the rthe f or e i gn l i t i ga t i on w oul d ‘ f rus tr a t e a pol i c y of

the f orum i s s ui ng the i nj unc t i on, ’ ” 587 F . 3d a t913 ( quot i ng G a llo , 44 6 F . 3d at99 1); i n o ther w ords, w e r ef

er ence d sol el y the fi rs tof the U n terw eser f

a c to r s . B u t th e r e is n o in d ic a tio n th a t Appl i e d Me di c al m ea nt , i n so d oi ng , t o n arrow the G al lo i n q u i ry. ( c o n tin u e d ...) 17 the i s s ue s a r e the s a m e ” i n both the dom e s t i c a nd f or e i gn a c t i ons , “ a nd w he the ror no tthe fi rs tac t i on i s di sposi t i ve of the ac t i on t o b e e nj oi ned. ” G a llo , 44 6 F . 3d at 99 1 (ci t at i on s om i tt ed). S ec on d, w e det erm i ne w hether a tl ea ston e of the so-c al l ed

“ U n terw eser f

a c to r s ” ap p lie s . Se e id. F in ally, w e a ss es s w h eth erth e in ju n ctio n ’s

“ i m pacton com i ty i s t ol er abl e. ” I d. T he U n terw eser fa ct ors a re a di sj un ct i ve l i stof consi dera t i on s thatm ay j us t i f y af or e i gn a nt i - s ui ti nj unc t i on, f i r s ta r t i c ul a t e d by the F i f th C i r c ui ti n In re Un te rwes e rRe e de r e iGM BH, 4 2 8 F .2 d 8 8 8 , 8 9 6 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 7 0 ) , af f’d on re h’g , 4 4 6 F .2 d 9 0 7 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 7 1 ) ( e n b a n c ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) , r e v ’ d on othe rgr ounds s ub nom . M / S B r e m e n v . Zapata O

f f - Shor e C o. , 4 0 7 U .S . 1 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , a n d a d o p te d b y th is c our ta s i ns truc t i ve i n Se a t t l e T o te ms , 65 2 F . 2d at85 5. T he ful l l i stof U nt erw es er f a c to r s is a s f

o llo w s : [ w he the rthe ] f

or e i gn l i t i ga t i on . . . w oul d ( 1) f rus tr a t e a pol i c y of

the f orum i s s ui ng the i nj unc t i on; ( 2) be ve xa t i ous oroppr e s s i ve ; ( 3) th reat en th e i ssu i n g co u rt ’ s i n rem or qu asii n rem j ur i s di c t i on; or( 4) w h ere th e p ro ceed i n g s p rej u d i ce o th er eq u i t ab l e co n si d erat i o n s. G a llo , 446 F . 3d a t990 ( quot i ng Se a t t l e T o te ms , 65 2 F . 2d at85 5). 9( . . . c ont i nue d) 9 R a the r , i n both G al lo a nd Appl i e d Me di c al , s uc h a f oc us m a de s e ns e be c a us e the c ontr a c t s a ti s s ue i nc l ude d f orum - s e l e c t i on c l a us e s , a nd the s pe c i f i c r a t i ona l e f

or the a nt i - s ui ti nj unc t i on i n e a c h c a s e w a s t o pr ot e c tthe s tr ong U . S . publ i c pol i c y of e n f o r c in g f o ru m - s e le c tio n c la u s e s . S till, G a llo i t s e l f i s c l e a rtha tthe l i s tof U nt erw es erf

a c to r s is d is

ju n c tiv e , a n d th a t “ any of the U n terw eser fa ct ors” m ay ju s tif y af o r e ig n a n ti- s u it in

ju n c tio n , n o t ju s t th e f

ir s t. 4 4 6 F .3 d a t 9 9 1 ( e m p h a s is added). 18 I n de t e rm i ni ng w he the rt o i s s ue M i c r os of t ’ s r e que s t e d a nt i - s ui ti nj unc t i on, the di s tr i c tc our tappl i e d the thr e e - s t e p G al lo fr am ew ork, and there fore “ i dent i fi ed the corre ctl egal st andard for deci si on of the i ss ue before i t . ” Hi nk s on , 58 5 F . 3d at 12 51 . U nd erthe abuse-of- di sc re t i on st andard of revi ew , w e nextconsi der w hether, i n appl y i ng tha tf

r a m e w ork, “ the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f i ndi ngs of

f a c t , a nd i t s appl i c a t i on of thos e f i ndi ngs of

f a c tt o the c orr e c tl e ga l s t a nda r d, w e r e i l l ogi c a l , i m pl a us i bl e , or w i tho utsupp orti n i nfer ence s thatm aybe draw n from fa ct s i n the re cord. ” I d. A . The pa r t i e s a nd i s s ue s a r e t he s a m e i n bo t h a c t i o ns T he thr e s hol d c ons i de r a t i on f ora f or e i gn a nt i - s ui ti nj unc t i on i s “ w he the ror notthe pa r t i e s a nd the i s s ue s a r e the s a m e ” i n both the dom e s t i c a nd f or e i gn a c t i ons , “ a nd w he the rornotthe f i r s ta c t i on i s di s pos i t i ve of the a c t i on t o be enj oi ned. ” G a llo , 4 4 6 F .3 d a t 9 9 1 ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) ; a c c o r d Q u a a k v . Kly n v e ld P eat M arw i ck G oerdelerB edri

j f sr ev isore n , 361 F . 3d 11, 18 ( 1s tC i r . 2004) ( “ T he gat ekee pi ng i nq ui ryi s, of course , w hether par al l el sui t s i nv ol ve the sa m e part i es19

a n d is s u e s .” ) ; P ar am e di c s E l e c tr om e di c i na C om e r c i al , L tda. v . G EMe d. Sys . I nf o. T ec h. , Inc. , 3 6 9 F .3 d 6 4 5 , 6 5 2 ( 2 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . C onduc t i ng thi s thr e s hol d i nqui ry i n Appl i e d Me di c al w i th r e f e r e nc e t o a contra ctcont ai ni ng a f

orum -s el ec t i on cl ause , w e c l ar i fi ed that w he the rthe i s s ue s a r e the s a m e a nd the f i r s ta c t i on di s pos i t i ve of the a c t i on t o be e nj oi ne d a r e i nt e rr e l a t e d r e qui r e m e nt s ; tha ti s , t o the e x te n t th e d o m e s tic a c tio n is c ap ab le o f d is p o s in g o f

a ll th e is s u e s in the f or e i gn a c t i on a nd a l l the i s s ue s i n the f or e i gn a c t i on f

a l l unde rthe f o ru m s e le c tio n c la u s e , th e is s u e s a r e m e a n in g f u lly “th e s a m e .” 587 F . 3d a t915. A l though the c ontr a c ta ti s s ue i n thi s c a s e doe s notc ont a i n a fo ru m -sel ect i o n cl au se, w e are n ev erth el ess i n fo rm ed b y Appl i e d Me di c al ’s em p h asi s o n th e fu n ct i o n al ch aract er o f th e th resh o l d si m i l ari ty-o f-i ssu es i n q u i ry. W e a s k “w h e th e rth e is s u e s a r e th e s a m e ” n o t in a te c h n ic a l o rf o rm a l s e n s e , b u t “in the se nse thatal l the i ss ues i n the forei gn ac t i on . . . ca n b e r es ol ved i n the l ocal ac t i on . ” I d. T he i ss ues nee d n otbe “ prec i se l y a nd verbal l y i dent i ca l , ” a s “ the verbal form of l aw s i n d i ff

er entcoun tri es w i l l i nevi t abl y di ff er . ” I d. H er e, al l agre e thatthe part i es ar e the sa m e i n b oth the U . S . and G erm an a c t i ons . A s t o w he the rthe i s s ue s a r e the s a m e i n the s e ns e tha ta l l the i s s ue s i n the G erm an pat entac t i on ca n b e r es ol ved i n the U . S . contra ctac t i on , M ot orol a a rgues th a t th e U .S . a c tio n c a n n o t r e s o lv e th e G e rm a n a c tio n , b e c a u s e p a te n t la w is u n iq u e ly te rr ito r ia l a n d p a te n ts h a v e n o e x tr a te rr ito r ia l e f f e c t.20

T o b e s ure, i f the di stri ctcourthad b as ed i t s i nj un ct i on i n an exp ec t at i on that U .S . p a te n t c l a i m s c oul d di s pos e of G e rm a n pa t e ntc l a i m s , the n i tw oul d ha ve e rr e d . See Stei n A ss ocs. , Inc. v. H eat & C on trol

, Inc. , 74 8 F . 2d 65 3, 65 8 (F ed. C i r. 1984) ( uphol di ng de ni a l of f or e i gn a nt i - s ui ti nj unc t i on a ga i ns te nf or c e m e ntof B r i t i s h pa t e nt s c orr e s pondi ng t o U . S . pa t e nt s - i n- s ui t , hol di ng tha t“ r e s ol ut i on of the d o m est i c act i o n w i l l n o td i sp o se o f th e B ri t i sh act i o n ” b ecau se “ [o ] n l y a B ri t i sh co u rt , ap p l yi n g B ri t i sh l aw , can d et erm i n e v al i d i ty an d i n fri n g em en to f B ri t i sh p a te n ts ” ) ; C an ad i an F i l ter s ( H arw i ch) L td. v. L ear- Si egl er , Inc. , 412 F . 2d 577, 579 ( 1s tC i r . 1969) ( va c a t i ng i nj unc t i on of C a na di a n pa t e ntpr oc e e di ngs a nd f i ndi ng th a t n o n e o f

th e e x c e p tio n s to c o m ity th a t m ig h t ju s tif ya f o r e ig n a n ti- s u it i nj un ct i on appl i ed “ w here the subj ec tm att erof the forei gn sui ti s ase para t e, in d e p e n d e n t f

o r e ig n p a te n t r ig h t” ) ; c

f . Spe r r y R and C or

p. v . Sunbe am C or

p. , 285 F .2 d 5 4 2 , 5 4 4 - 4 5 ( 7 th C ir . 1 9 6 1 ) ( r e je c tin g a r g u m e n t th a t d is tr ic t c o u r t c o u ld enj oi n G erm an tra dem ark l i t i gat i on ). B utthe di stri ctcourtdi d n otbase i t s i nj un ct i on on the pend encyof para l l el pat entproceedi ng s. R ather, i ti s M i cr osoft ’ s W as hi ng t on st at e c o n tr a c t cl ai m s that th e d i stri ctco u rtd et erm i n ed co u l d reso l v e th e G erm an p at en tcl ai m s. S p eci fi cal l y, the di s tr i c tc our tc onc l ude d tha tthe pe ndi ng dom e s t i c c ontr a c ta c t i on c oul d r e s ol ve th e is s u e s in th e G e rm a n p a te n t a c tio n “b e c a u s e th e E u r o p e a n P a te n ts a t is s u e in21

the G e rm a n A c t i on w e r e i nc l ude d i n M ot or ol a ’ s O c t obe r29 L e tt e rof f e r i ng a w o rl d w i d e l i cen se fo r M o t o ro l a’ s H . 2 6 4 S t an d ard -essen t i al p at en t s, an d b ecau se M o t o r o l a c o n tr a c t e d w i th th e I TU t o l i c e n s e th e Eu r o p e a n Pa t e n t s o n RA N D t e rms to a ll ap p lic a n ts o n a w o r ld w id e b a s is .” T he c ontr a c tua l um br e l l aove rthe pa t e ntc l a i m s i n thi s c a s e br i ngs i ti n l i ne w i th Me dtr oni c , I

nc . v . C atal

ys t R e s e ar c h C or

p. , 518 F . S upp. 946 ( D . M i nn. 1 9 8 1 ) , af f’d , 66 4 F . 2d 66 0 (8th C i r. 19 81 ). T here , as here , the di stri ctcourt e nj oi ne d a pa r ty f

r om e nf or c i ng i nj unc t i ve r e l i e f

i n f or e i gn pa t e nt - i nf

r i nge m e nt a c t i ons , a l though unl i ke he r e , none of the f or e i gn f or aha d y e ti s s ue d a n i nj unc t i on. T he di s tr i c tc our ti n Medtroni c c orr e c t l y obs e rve d tha t“ [ w ] he r e pa t e nt s a r e the i ssu e, th e su b

j ectm att er i s n o tth e sam e” fo r fo rei g n an t i -su i ti n j u n ct i o n p u rp o ses. I d. a t955 ( c i t i ng W

e s te r n E l e c . C o. , I

nc . v . Mi l go E l e c . C or

p. , 450 F . S upp. 835, 8 3 8 ( S .D . F la . 1 9 7 8 ) ) . B u t th e c o u r t c o n c lu d e d th a t it c o u ld is s u e a n a n ti- s u it i nj unc t i on a ga i ns tthe e nf or c e m e ntof

f or e i gn pa t e nt s w he r e the pr e c i s e i s s ue be f or e the U . S . c our tw a s notthe pa t e nt s the m s e l ve s , but“ ac ontr a c tbe tw e e n the p a r tie s ” n o t to e n f

o r c e th e p a te n ts . I

d. I n o th e rw o r d s , th e p a r ty w a s “n o t s e e k in g to e nj oi n [ a pa r ty f

r om l i t i ga t i ng i n] a f

or e i gn c our ton the ba s i s of a pa t e ntva l i di ty or i nfri ng em entfi nd i ng by a U ni t ed S t at es court ” buton the basi s of acontra ct in te rp r e ta tio n b y a U .S . c o u r t. I d.22

O r di na r i l y , w e do nota s s e s s a ta l l the l i ke l i hood of s uc c e s s on the m e r i t s i n a c a s e lik e th is , b e c a u s e w h e n a p r e lim in a ry in ju n c tio n is a ls o a f

o r e ig n a n ti- s u it i nj un ct i on , the l i kel i ho od -of- succ es s a spec tof the tra di t i on al prel i m i nary i nj un ct i on t es ti s r epl ac ed by the G al lo te s t. Se e G a llo , 446 F . 3d a t990 ( “ T o the ext entthe tra di t i on al prel i m i naryi nj un ct i on t es ti s app ropri at e, w e onl y nee d ad d ress w h eth er [th e i n

j u n ct i o n seek er] sh o w ed a si g n i fi can tl i k el i h o o d o f su ccess on the m e r i t s . T he m e r i t s i n thi s c a s e , how e ve r , a r e aboutw he the r[ the i nj unc t i on s e e k e r ] h a s d e m o n s tr a te d th a t th e f a c to r s s p e c if

ic to a n a n ti- s u it in

ju n c tio n w e ig h in f a vorof gr a nt i ng tha ti nj unc t i on he r e . ” ( a l t e r a t i ons i n or i gi na l ) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks , e l l i ps e s , a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) ) . S o i n thi s c a s e , a ba l l pa rk, t e nt a t i ve a s s e s s m e ntof

the m e r i t s of

the c ontr a c tdi s put e i s i ntr i ns i c a l l y bound up w i th the th re sh o ldan ti -s u itin

ju n ctio n in q u iry: If

w e c o n clu d ed th at th e d istrict co u rt’s i nt erpret at i on of the R A N D com m i tm entas a c on tra ctenforce abl e by M i cr osoft w as fund am ent al l y l egal l y e rr on eous, then w e w ou l d h ave t o con cl ud e thati tw as a n abus e of

di s c r e t i on f

orthe di s tr i c tc our tt o rul e tha tthe U . S . c ontr a c ta c t i on m i ghtdi s pos e of

the G e rm a n pa t e nta c t i on. H e r e , how e ve r , M ot or ol adoe s not di sput e thati t s R A N D com m i tm ent s c re at ed a c on tra ctthatM i cr osoftca n enforce a s ath ir d - p a r ty b e n e f

ic ia ry , e v e n if

it d is a g r e e s w ith M ic r o s o f t o v e rh o w to in te rp r e t th e te rm s o f

th a t c o n tr a c t.23

W e e m pha s i z e tha tw e do not( i nde e d, w e m a y not ) de c i de w he the rthe d is tr ic t c o u r t’s p a r tia l s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t, o rits d e te rm in a tio n th a t it w o u ld ad j u d i cat e a R A N D rat e, w as p ro p er — i f an ap p el l at e co u rti s t o rev i ew th o se d e t e rm i n a t i o n s , i twi l l h a v e t o d o s o o n af i n a l , n o ta n i n t e r l o c u t o ry , ap p e a l . B u twe d o h o l d th i s m u c h : T h e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s c o n c l u s i o n s th a tMo t o r o l a ’ s R AN D d e c la r a tio n s to th e I T U c r e a te d a c o n tr a c t e n f o r c e ab le b y M ic r o s o f

t a s a th ir d - p a r ty benefi ci ary ( w hi ch M ot orol a c on ce des) , and thatthi s c on tra ctgo verns i n som e w ay w h a t a c tio n s M o to r o lam a y ta k e to e n f o r c e its I T U s ta n d a r d - e s s e n tia l p a te n ts (i n cl u d i n g th e p at en t s ati ssu e i n th e G erm an su i t ), w ere n o tl eg al l y erro n eo u s. M ot orol a, i n i t s dec l ar at i on s t o the IT U , prom i se d t o “ granta l i ce nse t o an unr e s tr i c t e d num be rof

appl i c a nt s on a w or l dw i de , non- di s c r i m i na t ory ba s i s a nd on re as on abl e t erm s a nd cond i t i on s t o u se the pat ent ed m at er i al nece ss ary” t o p ra ct i ce the I T U s t a nda r ds . T hi s l a ngua ge a dm i t s of no l i m i t a t i ons a s t o w ho orhow m a ny ap p lic a n ts c o u ld r e c e iv e a lic e n s e ( “u n r e s tr ic te d n u m b e ro f ap p lic a n ts ” ) o ra s to w hi ch coun try ’ s pat ent s w ou l d b e i ncl ud ed (“ w orl dw i de, ” “ the pat ent ed m at er i al nece ss ary” ). Im pl i ci ti n such a sw ee pi ng prom i se i s, atl ea star gu abl y, a guarant ee tha tthe pa t e nt - hol de rw i l l nott a ke s t e ps t o ke e p w oul d- be us e r s f r om us i ng the pat ent ed m at er i al , such as se eki ng an i nj un ct i on , bu tw i l l i nst ea d p roff erl i ce nses c o n s is te n t w ith th e c o m m itm e n t m a d e . Se e Ap p le , 2012 W L 2376664 a t*12.24

In p art i cu l ar, th e face o f th e co n tractm ak es cl ear th ati ten co m p asses n o tj u st U . S . pat ent s, bu tal l of M ot orol a’ s s t andard-es se nt i al pat ent s w orl dw i de. W hen that c ontr a c ti s e nf

or c e d by a U . S . c our t , the U . S . c our ti s note nf or c i ng G e rm a n pa t e nt l a w but , r a the r , the pr i va t e l a w of the c ontr a c tbe tw e e n the pa r t i e s . A l though p a te n ts th e m s e lv e s a r e n o t e x tr a te rr ito r ia l, th e r e is n o r e a s o n a p a r ty m a y n o t f r e e ly a gr e e t o r e s e rva t i ons orl i m i t a t i ons on r i ght s tha ti tw oul d ha ve unde rf or e i gn pat entl aw (or a ny other r i gh t s thati tm ayhave un der f orei gn l aw ) i n a contra ct e nf or c e abl e i n U . S . c our t s . B y w a y of c om pa r i s on, w he ne ve ra pa r ty a gr e e s t o a f orum - s e l e c t i on c l a us e , i tr e l i nqui s he s a ny be ne f i t s tha ti tm i ghtr e c e i ve f r om s ta tu to ry r ig h ts o rf

a v o r ab le c a n o n s o f

c o n tr a c tu a l in te rp r e ta tio n o n ly a v a ilab le in o th er fo ru m s. T h ati s th e p arty’ s ch o i ce, an d “ [t ] h ere are co m p el l i n g reaso n s w h y a f r e e l y ne got i a t e d pr i va t e i nt e rna t i ona l a gr e e m e nt , una f f e c t e d by f

r a ud, undue i nfl uence, or ov erw ee ni ng bargai ni ng po w er , . . . shou l d b e gi ven ful l ef fe ct . ” M/ S B re m en , 407 U . S . a t12- 13. H ere, th ere i s n o fo ru m -sel ect i o n cl au se, b u tth e b ro ad er p ri n ci p l e ap p l i es: C our t s s houl d gi ve e f

f e c tt o f r e e l y m a de c ontr a c tua l a gr e e m e nt s . M ot or ol am a de p r o m is e s to th e I T U to lic e n s e its s ta n d a r d - e s s e n tia l p a te n ts w o r ld w id e to a ll c om e r s . I n e xc ha nge , i tr e c e i ve d the be ne f i tof ha vi ng i t s pa t e nt s i m pl i c a t e d i n the25

s t a n d a r d s . M o t o r o l ac o u l d h a v e wi th h e l d th e p r o mi s e a tth e p r i c e o f h a v i n g th e I TU a v o id its p a te n ts w h e n s e ttin g s ta n d a r d s , b u t c h o s e n o t to . I n s u m , w h e th e ro rn o t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t u ltim a te ly d e te rm in e s th a t M o to r o la brea ched i t s c on tra ctw i th the IT U (i tm ayor m ayno thave), i ti s c l ea r thatthere is a c o n tr a c t , th a ti ti s e n f

o r c e ab l e b y M i c r o s o f

t , a n d th a ti te n c o mp a s s e s n o tj u s tU . S. p a te n ts b u t a ls o th e p a te n ts a t is s u e in th e G e rm a n s u it. M o r e o v e r , e v e n if M o to r o la d id n o t b r e a c h its c o n tr a c t, th e n , ho w ev erthe R A N D ra t e i s t o b e det erm i ned u nd er the I T U s t a nda r ds , i nj unc t i ve r e l i e f a ga i ns ti nf

r i nge m e nti s a r guabl y a r e m e dy i nc ons i s t e ntw i th the l i c e ns i ng c om m i tm e nt . T ha tthe l i c e ns i ng a gr e e m e nti s not i t s e l f al i c e ns e a c c or di ng t o the I T U P ol i c y doe s notde tr a c tf r om thi s c onc l us i on. T he que s t i on i s how the c om m i tm e ntt o l i c e ns e i s t o be e nf or c e d, notw he the rthe com m i tm enti t se l f i s al i ce nse. M ot or ol am a i nt a i ns tha ti ti s i m pr ope rf orthe di s tr i c tc our tt o de t e rm i ne the prospect i ve R A N D ra t e ( or re trospec t i ve roya l t i es consi st entw i th the R A N D ra t e) , a tl e a s tbe f

or e good- f

a i th ba r ga i ni ng be tw e e n the pa t e nt e e a nd the pr os pe c t i ve l i ce nsee has f

ai l ed t o p rodu ce a r at e. W e do n otatthi s j un cture deci de w hether that is tru e o rn o t. C

f. Ap p le , 20 12 W L 23 76 66 4 at*1 1 (P osner, J. ) ( sugg es t i ng that d is tr ic t c o u r t c o u ld d e te rm in e R A N D r o y a lty b y “s ta r t[ in g ] w ith w h a t th e c o s t to the l i ce nsee w ou l d h ave been of obta i ni ng , j ustbefore the pat ent ed i nv ent i on w as26

de c l a r e d e s s e nt i a l t o c om pl i a nc e w i th the i ndus try s t a nda r d, a l i c e ns e f orthe f u n c tio n p e r f

o rm e d b y th e p a te n t” ) ; id. a t * 1 2 ( “M o to r o laa g r e e d to lic e n s e its st andards- es se nt i al pat ent s on F R A N D t erm s a s a qui d pr o quo f orthe i rbe i ng de c l a r e d e s s e nt i a l t o the s t a nda r d. I tdoe s notc l a i m t o ha ve c ondi t i one d a gr e e m e nt on pr os pe c t i ve l i c e ns e e s ’ m a ki ng c ount e r of f e r s i n l i c e ns e ne got i a t i ons . ” ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) ) . W ha t e ve rthe appr opr i a t e m e thod of de t e rm i ni ng the R A N D l i c e ns i ng ra t e, i tcoul d w el l be thatre trospec t i ve paym entatthe ra t e ul t i m at el y det erm i ned and a det erm i nat i on of the future r at e, no tan i nj un ct i on bann i ng sa l es w hi l e that r a t e i s de t e rm i ne d, i s the onl y r e m e dy c ons i s t e ntw i th the c ontr a c tua l c om m i tm e nt t o l i cen se u sers o f IT U st an d ard -essen t i al p at en t s. W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in de t e rm i ni ng tha tM i c r os of t ’ s c ontr a c t - ba s e d c l a i m s , i nc l udi ng i t s c l a i m tha tthe R A N D c om m i tm e ntpr e c l ude s i nj unc t i ve r e l i e f , w oul d, i f

de c i de d i n f

a vorof M i c r os of t , de t e rm i ne the pr opr i e ty of the e nf or c e m e ntby M ot or ol aof the i n j u n ct i v e rel i ef o b t ai n ed i n G erm an y. B . A t l e as t t w o U

n terw eser f

a c t o r s a p p ly A tthe s e c ond G al lo s te p , w e lo o k to “w h e th e rth e f o r e ig n litig a tio n w o u ld

‘ frustra t e apo l i cyof the forum i ss ui ng the i nj un ct i on , ’ ” Appl i e d Me d. , 58 7 F . 3d at27

913 ( quot i ng G a llo , 44 6 F . 3d at99 1), or w hether a ny of the other U nt erw es er f a c to r s ap p ly . Se e G a llo , 4 4 6 F .3 d a t 9 9 1 . I n e xpl a i ni ng i t s r a t i ona l e f orthe i nj unc t i on, the di s tr i c tc our tm a de f i ndi ngs suff i ci entt o est abl i sh atl ea sttw o o f the U n terw eser f

a c t or s : tha tthe f

or e i gn l i t i ga t i on i s “ ‘ ve xa t i ous oroppr e s s i ve , ’ ” a nd tha tthe f or e i gn l i t i ga t i on

“ ‘ prej ud i ce [s ] . . . equi t abl e c on si dera t i on s. ’ ” G a llo , 446 F . 3d a t990 ( quot i ng Se a t t l e T o te ms , 6 5 2 F .2 d a t 8 5 5 ) ; c f. id. at98 9 (“ C ou rt s der i ve the abi l i ty t o ent er a n a nt i - s ui ti nj unc t i on f

r om the i re qui t abl e pow e r s . ” ) . B a s e d on i t s i nt e r a c t i ons w i th the part i es , the di stri ctcourtfoun d that“ the t i m i ng of the fi l i ng of the G erm an A c t i on r a i s e s c onc e rns of f orum s hoppi ng a nd dupl i c a t i ve a nd ve xa t i ous l i t i gat i on , ” part i cul ar l y s i nce “ M ot orol a’ s c om m i tm ent s t o the IT U i nv ol ved approx i m at el y 100 M ot orol a- ow ned p at ent s, ye tM ot orol a i nv ok ed the G erm an A c tio n im p lic a tin g o n ly tw o . . . o f th e s e p a te n ts a n d s o u g h t in ju n c tiv e r e lie f

in G e rm a ny be f

or e thi s c our tc oul d a dj udi c a t e tha tpr e c i s e i s s ue , ” i . e . , the pr opr i e ty of in ju n c tiv e r e lie f

f o rin f r in g e m e n t o f

s ta n d a r d - e s s e n tia l p a te n ts . I n o th e rw o r d s , in the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s vi e w , M ot or ol a ’ s G e rm a n l i t i ga t i on w a s “ ve xa t i ous or oppr e s s i ve ” t o M i c r os of ta nd i nt e r f

e r e d w i th “ e qui t abl e c ons i de r a t i ons ” by c om pr om i s i ng the c our t ’ s abi l i ty t o r e a c h a j us tr e s ul ti n the c a s e be f or e i tf r e e of28

e xt e rna l pr e s s ur e on M i c r os of tt o e nt e ri nt o a“ hol dup” s e tt l e m e ntbe f or e the l i t i gat i on i s c om pl et e. M ot orol a c on t ends thatthe G erm an l i t i gat i on ca nn otbe desc ri bed as

“ ve xa t i ous ” be c a us e the G e rm a n c our trul e d i n M ot or ol a ’ s f a vor . B utl i t i ga t i on m a y ha ve s om e m e r i ta nd s t i l l be “ ve xa t i ous , ” w hi c h i s de f i ne d a s “ w i thout re as on abl e or probabl e c ause or excuse ; hara ss i ng ; anno yi ng . ” B lac k ’s L aw D i ct i on ary 1 7 0 1 (9 th ed . 2 0 0 9 ). In th e m id st o f lit ig atio n o v erM o to ro la’s obl i ga t i ons unde rW a s hi ngt on s t a t e c ontr a c tl a w w i th r e s pe c tt o apor t f ol i o of p a te n ts th a t in c lu d e s th e tw o G e rm a n p a te n ts , M o to r o lain itia te d s e p a r a te proceedi ng s i n G erm any t o enforce tho se tw o p at ent s di re ct l y. T he di stri ctcourt in te rp r e te d th is s te p a s a p r o c e d u r a l m a n e u v e rd e s ig n e d to h a r a s s M ic r o s o f t w ith the threa tof an i nj un ct i on re m ov i ng i t s produ ct s f rom a s i gn i fi ca ntE urop ea n m arketand so t o i nt er fe re w i th the court ’ s abi l i ty t o d ec i de the contra ctual que s t i ons a l r e a dy pr ope r l y be f or e i t . A l though the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on of M ot or ol a ’ s l i t i ga t i on de c i s i ons m a y notbe the onl y pos s i bl e i nt e rpr e t a t i on, i ti s not

“ i l l ogi c a l , i m pl a us i bl e , orw i thouts uppor tf r om i nf e r e nc e s tha tm a y be dr a w n f r om fa ct s i n the re cord. ” Hi nk s on , 585 F . 3d a t1251. W e the r e f or e c a nnothol d tha tthe di stri ctcourtabused i t s di sc re t i on atthi s s t age of the G al lo an al ysi s. C . T h e in j u n c t io n ’ s im p a c t o n c o m it y is t o le r a b le29

F in a lly , w e a s s e s s w h e th e rth e in ju n c tio n ’s “im p a c t o n c o m ity is to le r ab le .” G a llo , 4 4 6 F .3 d a t 9 9 1 . T h e p a r tic u la rp h r a s in g is in s tru c tiv e . G al lo r e q u ir e s n o t th a t w e c a lc u la te th e p r e c i s e q u a n tu m o f

th e i n j u n c t i o n ’ s i n t e r f

e r e n c e wi th c o m i ty , b u to n l y th a twe e s t i m a t e w he the ra nys uc h i nt e r f e r e nc e i s s o gr e a ta s t o be i nt ol e r abl e . S uc h a f l e xi bl e , f a c t - a nd c ont e xt - s pe c i f

i c i nqui ry a c c or ds both w i th the pos tur e of d eferen ce t o th e d i stri ctco u rtth atab u se-o f-d i scret i o n rev i ew req u i res g en eral l y, a n d w ith th e r e s is ta n c e o f c o m ity in p a r tic u la rto p r e c is e m e a s u r e m e n t. A f te ra ll, com i ty, as m any c ou rt s have r ec og ni ze d, i s “ a c om pl ex and el usi ve concept . ” L aker A i rw ays L td. v. Sa bena , B el gi an W orld A i rl i nes , 73 1 F . 2d 90 9, 93 7 (D . C . C i r. 1984) ( quot e d i n G a llo , 4 4 6 F .3 d a t 9 9 5 ) ; s e e al s o Q uaak , 361 F . 3d a t18 ( “ [ C ] om i ty i s a n e l us i ve c onc e pt . ” ) . I t“ i s ne i the ra m a tt e rof abs ol ut e obl i ga t i on, on the on e hand, no r of m er e c ou rt es y a nd go od w i l l , up on the other. ” Hi l ton v. G uy ot , 15 9 U . S . 11 3, 16 3-64 (189 5). N ev erth el ess, o u r cases, al o n g w i th i n stru ct i v e au th o ri ty fro m o th er ci rcu i t s, d o p r o v id e s o m e o b

je c tiv e g u id a n c e a s to f

a c to r s th a t m a y in f

o rm o u rc o m ity i nqui ry i n the a nt i - s ui ti nj unc t i on c ont e xt . F ori ns t a nc e , c om i ty i s l e s s l i ke l y t o be th r e a te n e d in th e c o n te x t o f a p r iv a te c o n tr a c tu a l d is p u te th a n in a d is p u te im p lic a tin g p u b lic in te rn a tio n a l la w o rg o v e rn m e n t litig a n ts . Se e G a llo , 44 6 F . 3d at30

9 9 4 ; Appl i e d Me d. , 58 7 F . 3d at92 1. A ton e pol e, w here tw o p art i es have m ade a pr i orc ontr a c tua l c om m i tm e ntt o l i t i ga t e di s put e s i n a pa r t i c ul a rf orum , uphol di ng th a t c o m m itm e n t b y e n

jo in in g litig a tio n in s o m e o th e rf o ru m is u n lik e ly to im p lic a te c o m ity c o n c e rn s a t a ll. Se e Appl i e d Me d. , 58 7 F . 3d at92 1. A tthe other po l e, i f ( hypo thet i ca l l y s peaki ng ) the S t at e D epartm entre pres ent ed t o the courtthat

“ the i ss uance of an i nj un ct i on re al l y w ou l d throw a m on key w re nch, ho w ever sm al l , i nt o the forei gn re l at i on s of the U ni t ed S t at es , ” A l l enda l e M ut . Ins. C o. v. B ul l D ata S ys . , Inc. , 1 0 F .3 d 4 2 5 , 4 3 1 ( 7 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) ( P o s n e r , J .) , th e n c o m ity w ou l d p re sum abl y w ei gh qu i t e hea vi l y a gai nstan ant i -s ui ti nj un ct i on . B etw ee n the s e tw o pol e s , c our t s m us ti n the i rdi s c r e t i on e va l ua t e w he the ra nd t o w ha te xt e nt i nt e rna t i ona l c om i ty w oul d be i m pi nge d upon by a n a nt i - s ui ti nj unc t i on unde rthe part i cul arci rc um st ance s. T he order i n w hi ch the do m es t i c a nd fore i gn sui t s w er e f i l e d, a l though notdi s pos i t i ve , m a y be r e l e va ntt o thi s de t e rm i na t i on de pe ndi ng on th e p a r tic u la rc ir c u m s ta n c e s . C om par e Appl i e d Me d. , 58 7 F . 3d at92 1 (w here

“ s ubs e que ntf

i l i ng” of f or e i gn a c t i on “ r a i s e s the c onc e rn tha t[ pa r ty ] i s a tt e m pt i ng to e v a d e th e r ig h tf

u l a u th o r ity o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u r t,” e n

jo in in g f o r e ig n a c tio n w o u ld n o t “in to le r ab ly im p a c t c o m ity ” ) , w ith G a llo , 446 F . 3d a t994 ( w he n pa r t i e s ha ve f orum - s e l e c t i on c l a us e , “ one pa r ty ’ s f i l i ng f i r s ti n adi f

f e r e ntf orum w oul d not i m pl i ca t e c om i ty a tal l ”) .31

T h e s c o p e o f

th e a n ti- s u it in

ju n c tio n is a n o th e rf

a c to rr e le v a n t to th e c o m ity i nqui ry . I n L akerA i rw ays , w h ic h w e h a v e r e c o g n iz e d a s a “s e m in a l c a s e [ ] o n a n tisui ti nj un ct i on s, ” G a llo , 4 4 6 F .3 d a t 9 9 4 , th e D .C . C ir c u it e x p la in e d : “C o m ity te a c h e s th a t th e s w e e p o f th e in ju n c tio n s h o u ld b e n o b r o a d e rth a n n e c e s s a ry to avoi d the harm on w hi ch the i nj un ct i on i s pre di ca t ed. ” L akerA i rw ays , 73 1 F . 2d at 9 3 3 n .8 1 . A u se fu l i ll u stra ti o n o f th is teac h in g is p ro v id ed b y th e S ec o n d C ircu it ’s opi ni on i n Ibeto P etrochem i cal Indu s. L td. v. M

/ T B ef f en , 47 5 F . 3d 56 (2d C i r. 2007) . I n tha tc a s e , the r e c e i ve rof a n a l l e ge dl y c ont a m i na t e d oi l s hi pm e ntf r om N ew Je rs eyt o N i geri a s ued the shi pp eri n N i geri an court , subsequent l y dem anded a rb i tr a t i o n i n Lo n d o n , a n d th e n f i l e d a n a d d i t i o n a l s u i ta g a i n s tth e s h i p p e ri n U . S. d is tr ic t c o u r t. I

d. at59 . T he U . S . di stri ctcourtfoun d thatthe part i es had an e nf or c e abl e c ontr a c tua l a gr e e m e ntt o a rbi tr a t e a ny di s put e s i n L ondon, a nd a c c or di ngl y c om pe l l e d a rbi tr a t i on, s t a y e d the U . S . a c t i on pe ndi ng c om pl e t i on of th e a rb itr a tio n , a n d p e rm a n e n tly e n jo in e d th e litig a tio n in N ig e r ia . I d. a t60- 61. T he S e c ond C i r c ui tc onc l ude d tha ta n a nt i - s ui ti nj unc t i on w a s appr opr i a t e buttha tthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s ge ne r a l l y w or de d, s e e m i ngl y pe rm a ne nti nj unc t i on “ c ut [ ] m uc h t oo broadl y. ” I

d. a t 6 5 . N o tin g th a t “p r in c ip le s o f in te rn a tio n a l c o m ity a n d r e c ip r o c ity r e qui r e ade l i c a t e t ouc h i n the i s s ua nc e of a nt i - f or e i gn s ui ti nj unc t i ons , ” the S e c ond C i r c ui tr e m a nde d t o the di s tr i c tc our tw i th i ns truc t i ons t o m odi f y the i nj unc t i on32

i nt o a m ore t ai l ored order “ di re ct ed spec i fi ca l l y t o the part i es ” a nd l i m i t ed i n t i m e. I d. A pp l yi ng these prec ept s t o o ur ca se , w e c anno tconcl ud e thatthe di stri ct c o u r t ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n in d e te rm in in g th a t af o r e ig n a n ti- s u it in

ju n c tio n c o u ld i s s u e . Atb o tt o m , th i s c a s e i s a p r i v a t e d i s p u t e u n d e rWa s h i n g t o n s t a t e c o n tr a c tl a w, b e tw e e n tw o U .S . c o rp o r a tio n s ; it d o e s n o t r a is e a n y “p u b lic in te rn a tio n a l is s u e .” G a llo , 44 6 F . 3d at99 4. M ot orol a onl y i ni t i at ed the G erm an l i t i gat i on af t er M i c r os of tf i l e d s ui ti n the U ni t e d S t a t e s . M or e ove r , the a nt i - s ui ti nj unc t i on s w e e ps

“ no broader than n ec es sa ry , ” L akerA i rw ays , 7 3 1 F .2 d a t 9 3 3 n .8 1 ; it b a r s M o to r o la n o t f r o m p u r s u in g its G e rm a n p a te n t c la im s a g a in s t M ic r o s o f t a lto g e th e r , b u t o n ly fr om po st i ng the bo nd re qu i re d t o enforce the G erm an i nj un ct i on . E ven thatbar c oul d e xpi r e a s s oon a s the di s tr i c tc our tha s ha d a n oppor tuni ty t o a dj udi c a t e the c o n tr a c tu a l is s u e s b e f

o r e it. M o to r o laa r g u e s th a t th e a n ti- s u it in ju n c tio n o f

f e n d s c o m ity in to le r ab ly be c a us e i t s G e rm a n pa t e ntc l a i m s ha ve m e r i tunde rG e rm a n l a w , a s e vi de nc e d by the M a nnhe i m C our t ’ s rul i ng i n M ot or ol a ’ s f a vora nd i nj unc t i on a ga i ns tthe s a l e of M i c r os of tpr oduc t s , a nd be c a us e G e rm a n c our t s , unl i ke s om e U . S . c our t s a nd com m ent at ors, do no ti nt erpretthe R A N D com m i tm entt o cre at e acontra ct e nf or c e abl e by thi r d pa r t i e s ort o f or e c l os e i nj unc t i ve r e l i e f . I f M ot or ol ai s r i ght33

thatthe tw o G erm an pat ent s a re es se nt i al t o i m pl em ent i ng the H . 26 4 i nd ustry st andard, then i ti s har dl y s urpri si ng thatthe G erm an courtfoun d thatM i cr osoft w a s u s in g th o s e p a te n ts in its H .2 6 4 - c o m p lia n t p r o d u c ts . G e rm a n a nd U . S . c our t s m a y di f f e ra s t o w ha tl e ga l c onc l us i ons f ol l ow f r om thatfi nd i ng . B utthe m er e f ac tthatdi ff

er entj uri sdi ct i on s a nsw erthe sa m e l egal q u e s tio n d if

f e r e n tly d o e s n o t, w ith o u t m o r e , g e n e r a te a n in to le r ab le c o m ity p r o b le m . I f

th a t w e r e th e c a s e , th e n th e r e c o u ld v ir tu a lly n e v e rb e a f o r e ig n a n tis ui ti nj unc t i on: P a r a l l e l pr oc e e di ngs i n di f f e r e ntj ur i s di c t i ons w oul d ha ve t o be p e rm i tt e d t o p r o c e e d a n y t i m e th e two j u r i s d i c t i o n s h a d d i f f e r e n tru l e s o f

l a w, w h ic h is a lm o s t a lw a y s th e c a s e . A ga i n ourf

orum - s e l e c t i on c a s e s pr ove i ns truc t i ve on thi s poi nt , e ve n though thi s c a s e doe s noti nvol ve a f orum - s e l e c t i on c l a us e . I n thos e c a s e s , w e ha ve e m p h a s iz e d th a t a n a n ti- s u it in ju n c tio n in th e s e rv ic e o f “e n f o r c in g a c o n tr a c t” betw ee n p ri vat e part i es do es no t“ brea ch[] no rm s of c om i ty, ” e ven i f, abse ntthat c ontr a c t , one pa r ty m i ghtha ve e nj oy e d di f f e r e ntpr oc e dur a l ors ubs t a nt i ve a d v a n ta g e s u n d e ra n o th e rc o u n try ’s la w . G a llo , 4 4 6 F .3 d a t 9 9 4 ; s e e al s o, e . g. , P aram edi cs , 3 6 9 F . 3 d at6 4 9 -5 5 (u p h o l d i n g fo rei g n an t i -su i ti n j u n ct i o n ag ai n st B ra zi l i an l i t i gat i on com m ence d aft erU . S . courthad rul ed the part i es ’ di sput e w as s ubj e c tt o the i ra rbi tr a t i on a gr e e m e nta nd c om pe l l e d a rbi tr a t i on, e ve n though the34

B ra zi l i an sui tal l eged “ a t ortcl ai m un i qu e t o B ra zi l i an l aw ” thatthe party a rgued coul d n otbe arbi tra t ed). I n a n y e v e n t, w e h a v e n e v e rs u g g e s te d th a t th e p r o p r ie ty o f a n a n ti- s u it i nj unc t i on turns upon the m e r i t s of the f or e i gn s ui tunde rf

or e i gn l a w . I n App l i ed Me di c al , the obj ec tof a f orei gn ant i -s ui ti nj un ct i on m ade asi m i l arar gu m entthat i t s B e l gi a n a c t i on c oul d notbe e nj oi ne d c ons i s t e ntw i th c om i ty , be c a us e the a c t i on w a s i ni t i a t e d “ i n good f a i th a nd [ w a s ] f

ounde d on l e gi t i m a t e B e l gi a n l a w . ” 587 F . 3d a t921. W e r e

j e c t e d thi s a r gum e nt . T o be s ur e , i n G a llo , w e s ug gest ed thatan a nt i - s ui ti nj unc t i on m a y be e s pe c i a l l y w a rr a nt e d t o r e s tr a i n apa r ty f r om “p o te n tia lly f

r a u d u le n t” f

o r e ig n litig a tio n . 4 4 6 F .3 d a t 9 9 3 . B u t “w e m a d e c le a rin G al lo thatdem on stra t i on of such extre m e f ac t s w as no tnece ss ary t o con cl ud e that an i nj un ct i on w ou l d n othave an i nt ol er abl e i m pacton com i ty. ” Appl i e d Me d. , 587 F . 3d a t921 ( c ons trui ng G a llo ). M ot orol a f

urther urges thatthe ant i -s ui ti nj un ct i on m ustbe ov erturned b e c a u s e it h a s d is ab le d M o to r o laf r o m e n f o r c in g its G e rm a n p a te n ts in th e o n ly f orum i n w hi c h the y c a n be e nf or c e d. T hi s a r gum e nte xa gge r a t e s the s c ope of the i nj unc t i on, w hi c h l e a ve s M ot or ol af r e e t o c ont i nue l i t i ga t i ng i t s G e rm a n pa t e nt cl ai m s a gai nstM i cr osoftas t o d am ages or other non -i nj un ct i ve re m edi es t o w hi ch i tm a y be e nt i t l e d. I nde e d, de pe ndi ng on the out c om e of the di s tr i c tc our tl i t i ga t i on,35

M ot orol a m ayw el l ul t i m at el y be abl e t o enforce the G erm an i nj un ct i on t oo . Itw as M ot or ol a tha tof

f e r e d t o l i c e ns e the G e rm a n pa t e nt s t o M i c r os of ti n i t s O c t obe r29, 20 10 , l ett er , confi rm i ng thattho se pat ent s a re i m pl i ca t ed i n i t s R A N D contra ctual agre em ent . If

M ot orol a w i shes t o chal l enge the di stri ctcourt ’ s i nt erpret at i on of that agre em ent , i tw i l l have t o d o so o n fi nal appeal , af t erthi s c as e i s f

ul l y r es ol ved. In th e m e a n tim e , w e c a n n o t s a y th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s lim ite d a n ti- s u it in ju n c tio n to p r o te c t its ab ility to r e a c h th a t f in a l r e s o lu tio n e n a c ts a n y in to le r ab le in c u r s io n in to G erm an y’ s so v erei g n ty. H ow everel usi ve i tm aybe, com i ty i s not , of course , t o b e c on t em pl at ed l i gh t l y. F orei gn ant i -s ui ti nj un ct i on s s ho ul d n otbe i ss ued rou t i nel y. B utthe re cord m akes cl ea r thatthe di stri ctcourtgave tho ug ht ful consi dera t i on t o the i m po rt ance of i nt e rna t i ona l c om i ty a nd ne ve r the l e s s de t e rm i ne d tha tunde rthe uni que ci rc um st ance s of thi s c as e, an ant i -s ui ti nj un ct i on w as prop er . R evi ew i ng that det erm i nat i on for a n abu se of di sc re t i on , w e c anno tsa y thati tre st ed up on an erroneou s vi ew of the l aw or a c l ea rl y e rr on eous vi ew of the fa ct s. “ A tm ost , there ar e c o m p etin g co m ity c o n ce rn s, so itca n n o t fairly b e s aid ” th at th e d istrict co u rt’s prel i m i naryi nj un ct i on “ w ou l d h ave a n i nt ol er abl e i m pacton com i ty. ” App l i ed Me d. , 587 F . 3d a t921. V . CONCL US I ON36

U n d e rth e u n iq u e c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f th is c a s e , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s n a rr o w ly t ai l ored prel i m i naryi nj un ct i on w as no tan abuse of di sc re t i on . W e AF F I RM .37 C ou n se l D e r e k L . S h a f

f e r , Q u in n E m a n u e l U r q u h a r t & S u lliv a n , L L P , W a s h in g to n D .C .; Ka th l e e n M. S u l l i v a n , Qu i n n E m a n u e l Ur q u h a r t& S u l l i v a n , L L P , Ne w Y o rk , NY , att o rn eys fo r A p p el l an t s. A rthu r W . H arri gan, Jr . , C hri st op her W i on , S hane P . C ra m er , D ani el son H arri gan L e y h & T o lle f

s o n L L P , S e a ttle , W A ; D a v id T . P r itik in , C o n s ta n tin e L . T r e ta , J r ., Ri c h a r d A . Ce d e r o th , Ro b e r tN . H o c h ma n , N a th a n i e l C. Lo v e , Si d l e y A u s t i n LLP, C hi ca go , IL ; C art erG . P hi l l i ps, S i dl eyA ust i n L L P , W as hi ng t on , D . C . ; T . A nd re w C ul be r t , D a vi d E . K i l l ough, M i c r os of tC orpor a t i on, R e dm ond, W A , a tt orne y s f or A pp el l ee .