Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/186191716/13-11-21-Microsoft-Motion-to-Transfer-Motorola-FRAND-Appeal
Timestamp: 2016-07-27 11:45:20
Document Index: 601864063

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1631', '§ 1295', '§ 1292', '§ 1332', '§ 1292', '§ 1295', '§ 1295', '§ 284']

UploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicEditors' Picks BooksHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks AudiobooksHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks ComicsHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks Sheet MusicHand-picked favorites from our editorsTop BooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop AudiobooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop ComicsWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop Sheet MusicWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreCategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodCrafts & HobbiesFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultCategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultCategoriesAdaptationsChildren’sCrime & MysteryFictionHumorMangaNonfictionRomanceSciFi, Fantasy & HorrorSuperheroesYoung AdultPublishersArcanaArchie ComicsBOOM! StudiosDynamiteIDW PublishingKingstone ComicsMarvel ComicsSpace Goat ProductionsTop Cow ComicsValiant ComicsZenescopeDifficultyBeginnerIntermediateAdvancedMixedInstrumentBrassDrums & PercussionGuitar, Bass, and FrettedPianoStringsVocalWoodwindsGenreClassicalCountryFolkJazz & BluesMovies & MusicalsPop & RockReligious & HolidayStandardsWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreCase: 14-1089Document: 10-1
No. 14-1089 __________________________________________________________________ IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT __________________________________________________________________ MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MOTOROLA, INC., GENERAL INSTRUMENT CORPORATION, MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, Defendants-Appellants. _________________________________________________________________ MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC., GENERAL INSTRUMENT CORPORATION, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, Defendants-Appellees. _________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington in Case No. 2:10-cv-01823-JLR, Judge James L. Robart _________________________________________________________________ MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S MOTION TO TRANSFER FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION _________________________________________________________________
Case: 14-1089
Plaintiff-Appellee Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) hereby moves this Court pursuant to FRAP 27 and Fed. Cir. R. 27(f) to transfer the appeal of Defendants-Appellants General Instrument Corporation, Motorola Mobility LLC, and Motorola, Inc. (“Motorola”) to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit because this Court lacks appellate jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631. On an interlocutory appeal in September 2012, the Ninth Circuit ruled that it, not this Court, has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over this breach of contract case. That ruling is law of the case, was correct, and fully warrants the transfer of this appeal. BACKGROUND A. The Ninth Circuit Ruled That It, Not This Court, Has Appellate Jurisdiction Over This Case.
Microsoft’s complaint, filed November 9, 2010, set forth causes of action for breach of contract and related state-law claims, invoking diversity jurisdiction and seeking damages and other relief. Ex. A, Dkt. No. 1 (Complaint) ¶¶ 19, 74–95. Microsoft filed an amended complaint on February 23, 2011, adding factual allegations concerning the breach claim. Ex. B, Dkt. No. 53 (Amended Complaint) ¶¶ 80–102. Microsoft’s claims concern Motorola’s breach of its contractual obligations to make
licenses to its standard-essential patents available on reasonable and non-discriminatory (“RAND”) terms on a worldwide basis. In 2011, while this case was pending in the district court, Motorola filed new lawsuits Germany, invoked German standardessential patents, and sought an injunction in Germany barring sales of Microsoft’s products before the U.S. district court could adjudicate Microsoft’s breach claim. In March 2012, the district court granted Microsoft’s motion for a preliminary injunction barring Motorola from enforcing any injunction it might obtain in Germany, because whether Motorola’s worldwide RAND commitments constrained Motorola’s conduct as a matter of contract was already being adjudicated in the U.S. district court. Motorola appealed the preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit. In its jurisdictional statement, Motorola accurately explained that “[b]ecause Microsoft’s complaint is pleaded in terms of contractual rather than patent rights, this appeal is properly brought before this Court and not the Federal Circuit.” Ex. C (Excerpt of Motorola’s Opening 9th Cir. Br.) at 2. The Ninth Circuit agreed: The Federal Circuit has jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal only if it would have 2
jurisdiction over a final appeal in the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1295. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(1). Microsoft’s complaint sounds in contract and invokes the district court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. We therefore have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 696 F.3d 872, 881 (9th Cir. 2012). As to the merits, the Ninth Circuit rejected Motorola’s arguments and affirmed the preliminary injunction, and in so doing held: The district court’s conclusions that Motorola's RAND declarations to the ITU created a contract enforceable by Microsoft as a third-party beneficiary (which Motorola concedes), and that this contract governs in some way what actions Motorola may take to enforce its ITU standardessential patents (including the patents at issue in the German suit), were not legally erroneous. Id. at 884. B. Resolution Of Microsoft’s Breach Of Contract Claim.
Following entry of the preliminary injunction, and by consent of the parties, the district court resolved Microsoft’ s breach of contract claim in two phases. First, the district court conducted a bench trial in November 2012 to determine, in light of Motorola’s contractual commitments, the appropriate RAND royalties for two sets of U.S. and foreign patents that Motorola claimed were essential to two standards.
The court issued its findings and conclusions from the bench trial in April 2013. Second, the district court conducted a jury trial on Microsoft’s breach claim, which ended with a verdict in Microsoft’s favor on September 4, 2013. On November 12, 2013, the district court entered partial final judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) on Microsoft’s breach of contract claim. Although Motorola previously recognized and indeed argued to the Ninth Circuit that it has exclusive appellate jurisdiction in this case, and the Ninth Circuit agreed, Motorola nonetheless now engages in blatant forum-shopping by noticing its second appeal to this Court, evidently concluding that a second appeal to the Ninth Circuit would likely produce the same result as the first. This Court should reject Motorola’s ploy and transfer the appeal to where it belongs. ARGUMENT In the first appeal in this case, the Ninth Circuit flatly rejected Motorola’s merits arguments in the context of the preliminary injunction. A jury has now decided that Motorola breached the very RAND commitments the Ninth Circuit held are enforceable contracts. Motorola’s attempt to appeal that determination to this Court is
transparent and impermissible forum-shopping. Only one Court of Appeals has jurisdiction in this case, and it is the Ninth Circuit, as has already been determined in this very case. Motorola’s attempt to evade that prior, binding determination which it urged the Ninth Circuit to adopt, should be rejected, and this Court should transfer this appeal. Even apart from law of the case, it is clear that Motorola has appealed to the wrong Court. This Court has jurisdiction over appeals from a district court “if the jurisdiction of that court was based, in whole or in part, on section 1338.” 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) (2006).1 Under the “well-pleaded-complaint rule,” Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830 (2002), this Court’s appellate jurisdiction extends: only to those cases in which a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal patent law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law, in that patent law is a necessary element of one of the well-pleaded claims. Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 809 (1988).
Microsoft’s complaint was filed before the enactment of the America Invents Act (“AIA”), so the previous version of § 1295 applies. See Wawrzynski v. H.J. Heinz Co., 728 F.3d 1374, 1377–78 (2013). 5
Few state-law claims are properly within the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. Gunn v. Minton, 133 S. Ct. 1059, 1065 (2013). “[F]ederal jurisdiction over a state law claim will lie if a federal issue is: (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federalstate balance approved by Congress.” Id. “[F]act-bound and situationspecific effects are not sufficient to establish federal arising under jurisdiction.” Id. at 1068 (quotation marks omitted). I. The Ninth Circuit’s Ruling That It Has Appellate Jurisdiction Is Law Of The Case. The Ninth Circuit ruled in September 2012 that it has appellate jurisdiction over this breach of contract case, explicitly acknowledging the scope of this Court’s appellate jurisdiction, but finding that Microsoft’s case did not fall within it. Microsoft, 696 F.3d at 881. The law of the case doctrine “posits that when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.” Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618 (1983). The law of the case doctrine “applies as much to the decisions of a coordinate court in the same case as to a court’s own decisions.” Christianson, 486 U.S. at 816. Because the Ninth Circuit 6
was the “first to decide the jurisdictional issue,” the law of this case is that the Ninth Circuit has appellate jurisdiction. Id. at 817. In Christianson, both this Court and the Seventh Circuit decided that the other had jurisdiction over an appeal, resulting in successive transfers. In resolving the dispute, the Supreme Court observed that the policies underlying the law of the case doctrine “apply with even greater force to transfer decisions,” including those on jurisdictional grounds, “than to decisions of substantive law; transferee courts that feel entirely free to revisit transfer decisions of a coordinate court threaten to send litigants into a vicious circle of litigation.” Id. All of the concerns the Supreme Court identified in Christianson are on full display here. Motorola’s attempt to seek review in a different appellate court after losing its first appeal demands strict application of law of the case, especially because Motorola would undoubtedly urge this Court to revisit issues Motorola already lost in the Ninth Circuit, including the holding that its RAND commitments are contracts enforceable by Microsoft as a third-party beneficiary. See Microsoft, 696 F.3d at 878, 884–85. Motorola chose not to seek review
of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling by the Supreme Court, and it cannot now obtain review of that decision by improperly filing an appeal here. The Supreme Court in Christianson made clear that deviations from law of the case on appellate jurisdiction questions “should necessarily be exceptional,” and that “as a rule courts should be loathe to do so in the absence of extraordinary circumstances such as where the initial decision was ‘clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.’” 486 U.S. at 819, 817. Such circumstances are entirely absent here: the Ninth Circuit’s ruling is clearly correct in light of Microsoft’s complaint, and directing Motorola to lodge its appeal in the appropriate regional circuit—to which it has already appealed once— could not possibly work any “manifest injustice.” Even if appellate jurisdiction presented a close question—and as explained below, it does not—the Supreme Court has addressed that precise circumstance and, applying the “clearly erroneous” standard, held that appellate courts facing rulings from coordinate courts on close questions of appellate jurisdiction should “adher[e] strictly to principles of law of the case” because “close questions, by definition, never have clearly correct answers.” Id. at 819. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling is more
than “plausible” (it is entirely correct), so this Court’s “jurisdictional inquiry is at an end,” and this appeal must be transferred. Id. II. Microsoft’s Complaint Provides No Basis For Federal Circuit Jurisdiction. Even if it were appropriate for this Court to consider the issue anew, the result would be the same. Evaluation of this Court’s appellate jurisdiction begins and ends with Microsoft’s complaint. Holmes Group, 535 U.S. at 830. Federal patent law does not create any of the causes of action asserted in Microsoft’s complaint—breach of contract, promissory estoppel, waiver, and a declaratory judgment that Motorola’s license offers did not comply with its contractual obligations. Accordingly, the sole question is whether Microsoft’s “right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law, in that patent law is a necessary element of one of the wellpleaded claims.” Christianson, 486 U.S. at 809. The answer to that question is “no.” A. Microsoft’s Breach Of Contract Claim Does Not Depend On Any Substantial Question of Patent Law.
Microsoft’s breach of contract claim concerns Motorola’s refusal to abide by its contractual commitments to make licenses to its standardessential patents available on RAND terms. Although the parties’ 9
dispute generally relates to patents, “the mere presence of a patent as relevant evidence to a claim does not by itself present a substantial issue of patent law.” Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings v. Metabolite Labs., Inc., 599 F.3d 1277, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010). See ClearPlay, Inc. v. Abecassis, 602 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“It is not enough that patent law issues are in the air. Instead, resolution of a patent law issue must be necessary to every theory of relief under at least one claim in the plaintiff’s complaint.”) (emphasis added). Because on the face of Microsoft’s complaint there are multiple “reasons completely unrelated to the provisions and purposes of” the patent laws why Microsoft “may or may not be entitled to the relief it seeks,” Microsoft’s breach claim does not arise under the patent laws. Christianson, 486 U.S. at 810. For example, Microsoft was entitled to relief on the theory that Motorola breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing inherent in its contracts by pursuing injunctions on standard-essential patents in these specific circumstances—and Microsoft prevailed on that theory. Ex. D, Dkt. No. 909 (Verdict Form) at 3. Motorola sent sham offer letters, Microsoft filed suit to enforce Motorola’s RAND commitments, and Motorola retaliated by filing lawsuits elsewhere seeking injunctions
against Microsoft’s standard-compliant products. Further, Motorola went to great lengths to try to obtain those injunctions before the district court could rule on Microsoft’s breach claim. No patent law issue is presented by this theory because it concerns Motorola’s conduct in context and in light of its contractual commitments, not application of general principles concerning patent injunctions or evaluation of the merits of Motorola’s suits. Further, one of Motorola’s key injunction actions was brought in Germany, under German patent law. Microsoft prevailed in the district court on the specific theory that Motorola’s pursuit of an injunction in Germany was a breach, as demonstrated by the jury’s award of damages for the injuries incurred there. Ex. D at 2. Conduct in Germany, even if based on German patent law, cannot make a case arise under U.S. patent law. That same principle applies more broadly to Microsoft’s breach claim—Motorola’s RAND obligations are worldwide, and its sham offer letters purported to offer licenses to Motorola’s worldwide portfolio of standard-essential patents. Microsoft was entitled to prevail on its breach claim on the theory that Motorola’s conduct as to its foreign patents breached its contract, regardless of any
conduct related to U.S. patents. That claim does not require resolution of any issue of U.S. patent law. Even as to U.S. patents, Microsoft’s breach of contract claim is a dispute in which infringement and validity are not necessary, or even relevant, inquiries. This Court has repeatedly held that it lacks appellate jurisdiction over such state law disputes relating to patents because adjudicating them does not require adjudicating substantial issues of patent law.2 Determining whether Motorola breached its contract has nothing to do with whether particular products infringe particular patents. In fact, for purposes of resolving the breach claim, the parties did not ask the district court or jury whether Motorola’s patents were valid and actually essential to the standards. As Microsoft stated unequivocally in its complaint:
See Bonzel v. Pfizer, Inc., 439 F.3d 1358, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (no appellate jurisdiction over complaint for specific performance of a patent license); Bd. of Regents, Univ. of Tex. v. Nippon Tel. & Tel. Corp., 414 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (collecting cases involving patents that did not arise under patent law); Ballard Med. Prods. v. Wright, 823 F.2d 527, 530 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“The scope of a licensed patent may control the scope of a license agreement, but that rule of contract law cannot possibly convert a suit for breach of contract into one ‘arising under’ the patent laws.”).
Motorola’s breach of its commitments does not depend on whether any Motorola patents which Motorola has identified in relation to standards are, in fact, “essential” to practicing those standards, whether those standards can be practiced in ways that do not infringe the identified Motorola patents or whether Microsoft has infringed any valid Motorola patents. Because Motorola promised that it would license any such patents on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms, companies that rely on those commitments are entitled to avoid becoming embroiled in patent controversies and to receive the benefit of an offer of a reasonable and non-discriminatory license. Ex. A ¶ 8.3 Accordingly, the district court treated Motorola’s patents as essential to the standards, and focused on the significance of Motorola’s contribution to the standards and whether alternatives could have been implemented in the standards instead. At no point did the court or jury determine, or need to determine, that Microsoft did or did not infringe a Motorola patent or whether any Motorola patent was valid or invalid. Similarly, while the district court’s determination may have touched on patent damages concepts, it did so only by analogy, and no patent
For this reason, U.S. Valves, Inc. v. Dray, 212 F.3d 1368, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000), where a breach of contract claim required a determination of whether certain products infringed patents, has no application here.
damages issues were decided, nor were patent damages awarded. The district court did not determine a “reasonable royalty” under 35 U.S.C. § 284; it determined an element of Motorola’s contractual RAND obligation—the RAND royalty. Finally, even if the district court’s decision to make a RAND royalty determination on its way to resolving Microsoft’s breach claim had resulted in the court addressing patent law issues (and it did not), as established above Microsoft could and did prevail on other breach theories that did not involve patent law issues at all. Moreover, jurisdiction is defined solely by Microsoft’s complaint, not by the particular path taken by the court and parties. Unless resolving Microsoft’s claim as pleaded necessarily required resolving disputed, substantial patent law issues (and it did not) this Court lacks jurisdiction. B. Microsoft’s Other Claims Do Not Depend On Any Question Of Patent Law.
Microsoft’s promissory estoppel claim alleges that Motorola made RAND commitments intending to induce reliance by developers of standard-compliant products, including Microsoft, and that Motorola is estopped from reneging on its promises to make licenses to those 14
patents available on RAND terms. Ex. A ¶¶ 82–87. Whether Motorola actually holds essential patents is immaterial, and the promissory estoppel claim depends on no issues of patent law. Microsoft’s waiver claim alleges that Motorola waived any right to compensation for its standard-essential patents other than on RAND terms. Ex. A ¶¶ 89–91. The waiver claim concerns the scope of Motorola’s contractual relinquishment of rights, and the district court held it is cumulative of Microsoft’s other claims (Ex. E, Dkt. No. 66 (June 1, 2011 Order) at 7–8), so it also depends on no issues of patent law. Finally, Microsoft sought a declaratory judgment that “Motorola has not offered license terms to Microsoft conforming to applicable legal requirements.” Ex. A ¶ 95. Microsoft’s declaratory judgment claim is a simply variant of its breach of contract claim, as the district court ruled in dismissing it: “Requests for declaratory judgment orders that merely impose the remedies provided for in other claims are duplicative and may be dismissed on that basis.” Ex. E at 8–9. Accordingly, the declaratory judgment claim likewise does not depend on patent law.
III. Consolidation Does Not Affect Appellate Jurisdiction. Motorola cannot resort to the consolidation of a patent infringement case with this case as a vehicle to forum-shop. Consolidation “does not merge the suits into a single cause, or change the rights of the parties,” Johnson v. Manhattan Ry., 289 U.S. 479, 496– 97 (1933), and accordingly cannot affect whether Microsoft’s wellpleaded complaint arises under the patent laws. A. Motorola’s Patent Infringement Case.
On November 10, 2010, one day after Microsoft filed its breach of contract case, Motorola filed a patent infringement case in Wisconsin, alleging that Microsoft infringed certain standard-essential patents. The case was transferred to the Western District of Washington in February 2011, and in June 2011 the district court consolidated it with Microsoft’s breach of contract case, observing “that the essential facts are not so intertwined and logically connected that considerations of judicial economy and fairness dictate that the issues be resolved in one lawsuit,” but determined that consolidation was appropriate in the interests of judicial economy. Id. at 11. Motorola’s patent infringement claims have been stayed since July 2012.
Consolidation Is A Procedural Vehicle That Affects No Substantive Rights.
The Supreme Court has held that “consolidation is permitted as a matter of convenience and economy in administration, but does not merge the suits into a single cause, or change the rights of the parties, or make those who are parties in one suit parties in another.” Johnson, 289 U.S. at 496–97. In the jurisdictional context, consolidation is of no consequence. Consolidation “does not cause one civil action to emerge from two” for jurisdictional purposes; “the actions do not lose their separate identity.” McKenzie v. United States, 678 F.2d 571, 574 (5th Cir. 1982). Indeed, “while a consolidation order may result in a single unit of litigation, such an order does not create a single case for jurisdictional purposes.” Cella v. Togum Constructeur Ensembleier en Industrie Alimentaire, 173 F.3d 909, 913 (3d Cir. 1999). While some decisions have suggested that consolidation of any case with a patent case provides this Court with jurisdiction, those decisions have been undermined by the Supreme Court’s decision in Holmes Group. In Holmes Group, the Court held this Court’s jurisdiction turned solely on the face of the complaint and that a non-
patent case cannot be transformed into a patent case by a defendant’s counterclaims: Allowing a counterclaim to establish “arising under” jurisdiction would also contravene the longstanding policies underlying our precedents. First, since the plaintiff is “the master of the complaint,” the well-pleaded-complaint rule enables him, “by eschewing claims based on federal law . . . to have the cause heard in state court.” [Citation]. The rule proposed by respondent, in contrast, would leave acceptance or rejection of a state forum to the master of the counterclaim. It would allow a defendant to remove a case brought in state court under state law, thereby defeating a plaintiff's choice of forum, simply by raising a federal counterclaim. … And finally, allowing responsive pleadings by the defendant to establish “arising under” jurisdiction would undermine the clarity and ease of administration of the well-pleaded-complaint doctrine, which serves as a “quick rule of thumb” for resolving jurisdictional conflicts. 535 U.S. at 831–32. Because the plaintiff is “the master of the complaint,” it follows that a defendant cannot transform a plaintiff’s non-patent case into a patent case by filing a separate patent action and persuading the district judge to consolidate the cases. In In re Innotron Diagnostics, 800 F.2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1986), a pre-Holmes Group case, an antitrust suit was consolidated with a patent infringement suit, and in assessing its jurisdiction, this Court 18
held that “this is one lawsuit,” and that, “therefore, jurisdiction of the entire consolidated case was based ‘in part’ on 28 U.S.C. 1338(a).” Id. at 1080. Innotron did not survive Holmes Group’s delineation of this Court’s jurisdictional grant, because Innotron expressly turned on the parity between consolidation and counterclaims: “The district court’s consolidation of the cases produced the same status as that which would have obtained if Abbott had filed its patent claim as a counterclaim.” 800 F.2d at 1080 (emphasis added). Holmes Group squarely held that a defendant’s filing of a “patent claim as a counterclaim” does not create jurisdiction in this Court where the plaintiff’s complaint standing alone did not.4 To maintain parity between consolidation and counterclaims after Holmes Group, consolidation cannot affect appellate jurisdiction.5
For this reason, apart from whether it can be reconciled with Holmes Group, CytoLogix Corp. v. Ventana Med. Sys., Inc., 513 F.3d 271 (1st Cir. 2008) (per curiam), finding that the plaintiff’s appeal to the Federal Circuit had precedence over the plaintiff’s appeal to the First Circuit where plaintiff’s antitrust and patent cases were tried together, is inapplicable here. Consolidation occurred long before the injunction proceedings in the district court and long before Motorola appealed the injunction to the Ninth Circuit, and the Ninth Circuit, as urged by Motorola, held that it had jurisdiction. 19
CONCLUSION Because this Court lacks appellate jurisdiction, Microsoft respectfully requests that the Court order this appeal transferred to the Ninth Circuit. FEDERAL CIRCUIT RULE 27(a)(5) STATEMENT Counsel for Microsoft has conferred with counsel for Motorola regarding this Motion to Transfer. Counsel for Motorola has indicated that Motorola is opposed to the relief requested herein and that Motorola intends to file a response.
Dated: November 21, 2013 T. Andrew Culbert David E. Killough MICROSOFT CORPORATION 1 Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052 (425) 882-8080 (t) (425) 869-1327 (f)
Respectfully submitted, s/ Carter G. Phillips Carter G. Phillips SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 736 8000 (t) (202) 736 8711 (f) David T. Pritikin Constantine L. Trela, Jr. Richard A. Cederoth Nathaniel C. Love SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One S. Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 312-853-7000 (t) 312-853-7036 (f) 20
Arthur W. Harrigan, Jr. Shane P. Cramer CALFO HARRIGAN LEYH & EAKES LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4400 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-1700 (t) (206) 623-8717 (f) Counsel for Microsoft Corporation
CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST Counsel for Defendant-Appellee Microsoft Corporation certifies the following: 1. is: Microsoft Corporation. 2. The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in The full name of every party or amicus represented by me
the caption is not the real party in interest) represented by me is: N/A. 3. All parent corporations and any publicly held companies
that own 10 percent or more of the stock of the party or amicus represented by me are: None. 4. The names of all law firms, partners and associates that
have appeared for on behalf of Microsoft Corporation in USDC Case No. 2:10-cv-01823-JLR or are expected to appear in this Court are: Sidley Austin LLP, Cafo Harrigan Leyh & Eakes LLP (formerly Danielson Harrigan Leyh & Tollefson LLP), Michael Best & Friedrich LLP; Anthony Balkissoon, William H Baumgartner, Jr., Richard A. Cederoth,
Theodore W. Chandler, David C. Giardina, David Greenfield, Robert N. Hochman, Douglas I. Lewis, Nathaniel C. Love, John W. McBride, Shubham Mukherjee, Brian R. Nester, Carter G. Phillips, David T. Pritikin, Ellen S. Robbins, Constantine L. Trela, Jr., Kevin C. Wheeler, and Herman F. Webley of Sidley Austin, LLP; Shane P. Cramer, Arthur W. Harrigan, Jr., and Christopher T. Wion of Cafo Harrigan Leyh & Eakes LLP (formerly Danielson Harrigan Leyh & Tollefson LLP); J. Donald Best, Charles J. Crueger, and Christopher C. Davis of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP; T. Andrew Culbert and David Killough of Microsoft Corporation. Dated: November 21, 2013 T. Andrew Culbert David E. Killough MICROSOFT CORPORATION 1 Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052 (425) 882-8080 (t) (425) 869-1327 (f) s/ Carter G. Phillips Carter G. Phillips SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 736 8000 (t) (202) 736 8711 (f) David T. Pritikin Constantine L. Trela, Jr. Richard A. Cederoth Nathaniel C. Love SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One S. Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 312-853-7000 (t)
312-853-7036 (f) Arthur W. Harrigan, Jr. Shane P. Cramer CALFO HARRIGAN LEYH & EAKES LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4400 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 623-1700 (t) (206) 623-8717 (f) Counsel for Microsoft Corp.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on this 21st day of November, the foregoing Motion to Transfer was filed with the Court using the Court’s electronic case filing system, which will send notification to all registered users. s/ Nathaniel C. Love Nathaniel C. Love Sidley Austin LLP One South Dearborn Chicago, Illinois 60603 312-853-7000 (t) 312-853-7036 (f)
13-11-21 Microsoft Motion to Transfer Motorola FRAND Appeal by Florian Mueller28K viewsEmbedDownloadRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
RelatedStiener et al v. Apple, Inc. et al - Document No. 73by Justia.com13-11-05 Motorola Mobility Brief in Appeal of Wisconsin FRAND Dismissalby Florian Mueller2011-05-23 Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (1-07-cv-2240) in the US District Court, DC – invalid court records in a case of Simulated Litigation-sby Human Rights Alert, NGO13-03-01 Microsoft Letter Re. MPEG LA-Google Licenseby Florian MuellerUNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION - Document No. 708by Justia.com14-01-10 Google Answer to Rockstar Search Patent Complaintby Florian MuellerGarcia v Scientology - Plaintiffs Motion for Protective Order (Jul2013)by AnonLover13-03-01 Motorola Letter Re. MPEG LA-Google Licenseby Florian Muellerminut039 (NHSCT, 2002)by Chris BuckGoogle's MPEG LA License of 2005by Florian MuellerRule 14 Summonsby CentSering13-02-28 InterDigital Opposition to Huawei-ZTE Motions to Expediteby Florian MuellerMotion to Compelby American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California13-07-01 Nokia Motion to File Under Sealby Florian MuellerWade v. Donald et al - Document No. 5by Justia.comApple Opening Brief in CAFC Wisconsin Appealby Mikey CampbellSps Supapoby chris13-09-04 Microsoft v. Motorola FRAND Breach Jury Verdictby Florian MuellerOwnership - Cases Compilationby Nemei Santiago13-11-20 Apple Opposition to Samsung Emergency Motion for Stayby Florian MuellerWrit of Amparo and Databy Ikaw Na Nga14-01-21 Rockstar-Huawei Joint Motion to Dismissby Florian MuellerWolf Run Hollow v. State Farm Bank, F.S.B.by PriorSmartHuawei letter to ITC requesting delay of investigation of InterDigital complaintby Florian MuellerResponse 12.9by ashontell13-11-25 Order Denying Samsung Motion to Stay Apple Caseby Florian Mueller209843by artemis4213-03-04 Apple Notice to ITC of Japanese FRAND Rulingby Florian MuellerSimilar to 13-11-21 Microsoft Motion to Transfer Motorola FRAND AppealStiener et al v. Apple, Inc. et al - Document No. 7313-11-05 Motorola Mobility Brief in Appeal of Wisconsin FRAND Dismissal2011-05-23 Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (1-07-cv-2240) in the US District Court, DC – invalid court records in a case of Simulated Litigation-s13-03-01 Microsoft Letter Re. MPEG LA-Google LicenseUNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION - Document No. 70814-01-10 Google Answer to Rockstar Search Patent ComplaintGarcia v Scientology - Plaintiffs Motion for Protective Order (Jul2013)13-03-01 Motorola Letter Re. MPEG LA-Google Licenseminut039 (NHSCT, 2002)Google's MPEG LA License of 2005Rule 14 Summons13-02-28 InterDigital Opposition to Huawei-ZTE Motions to ExpediteMotion to Compel13-07-01 Nokia Motion to File Under SealWade v. Donald et al - Document No. 5Apple Opening Brief in CAFC Wisconsin AppealSps Supapo13-09-04 Microsoft v. Motorola FRAND Breach Jury VerdictOwnership - Cases Compilation13-11-20 Apple Opposition to Samsung Emergency Motion for StayWrit of Amparo and Data14-01-21 Rockstar-Huawei Joint Motion to DismissWolf Run Hollow v. State Farm Bank, F.S.B.Huawei letter to ITC requesting delay of investigation of InterDigital complaintResponse 12.913-11-25 Order Denying Samsung Motion to Stay Apple Case20984313-03-04 Apple Notice to ITC of Japanese FRAND RulingRemedial Law13-04-10 Apple v. Samsung Claim Construction Order