Source: https://de.scribd.com/document/179876098/13-10-28-Motorola-Mobility-Motion-for-Partial-Summary-Judgment-Against-Apple-Re-Qualcomm-Chips
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 06:55:13+00:00

Document:
judgment that any injunction that may issue in this case cannot cover Motorolas patents as applied to .
Apple has made a veiled attempt to shoehorn a of technology into this case without merit.
If contractual terms are unambiguous, contract interpretation is an issue of law and is properly resolved by the court by summary judgment. Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co., of Pittsburgh, Penn. v. Argonaut Ins. Co., 701 F.2d 95, 9697 (9th Cir. 1983); Beck Park Apts. v. U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Dev., 695 F.2d 366, 369 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, the determination of whether a contractual term is ambiguous is also an issue of law for the court. United States v. Sacramento Mun. Util. Dist., 652 F.2d 1341, 134344 (9th Cir.1981); Beck Park Apts. V. U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Dev., 695 F.2d 366, 369 (9th Cir. 1982); see also Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Am. Intl Surplus lines Ins. Co., 465 F. Supp. 2d 1005, 1012 (S.D. Cal. 2006) (When a contract is not ambiguous, summary judgment may be entered based on the courts interpretation of clear and unambiguous provisions which present only questions of law.); GBTI, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of State of Penn., 2011 WL 1332165, at *4 (E.D. Cal. April 5, 2011) (Interpretation of clear and unambiguous provisions in a contract is a question of law for the court, allowing summary judgment/ adjudication). [I]t is the lack of ambiguity within the express terms of the contract that forecloses any genuine issues of material fact. Hickey v. A.E. Staley Mfg., 995 F.2d 1385, 1389 (9th Cir. 1993). IV. ARGUMENT A.
CASE NO. 3:12-cv-00355-GPC-BLM DECL. OF P. CHASSMAN ISO MOTOROLAS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUM. JUDG. RE MOTOROLAS PATENTS AS APPLIED TO CERTAIN TECH.
Patent License Agreement, produced by Motorola in this case and bearing bates 1 CASE NO. 3:12-cv-00355-GPC-BLM DECL. OF P. CHASSMAN ISO MOTOROLAS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUM. JUDG. RE MOTOROLAS PATENTS AS APPLIED TO CERTAIN TECH.
MOTOAPLSDCA0021524-528. Attached as Exhibit 14 is a true and correct copy of a confidential 2 CASE NO. 3:12-cv-00355-GPC-BLM DECL. OF P. CHASSMAN ISO MOTOROLAS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUM. JUDG. RE MOTOROLAS PATENTS AS APPLIED TO CERTAIN TECH. 16.
that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 23rd day of October 2013, in Houston, Texas.
3 CASE NO. 3:12-cv-00355-GPC-BLM DECL. OF P. CHASSMAN ISO MOTOROLAS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUM. JUDG. RE MOTOROLAS PATENTS AS APPLIED TO CERTAIN TECH.
Federal-Mogul et. al. v. NJT Enterprises d/b/a Mayco International et. al.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.