Opinion ID: 6319837
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: I. 28 at 32.

Text: 28 Id. at 13. The court eventually denied Cox’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Tr. at 36. 29 D.I. 62 at 2. 30 The court granted Cox’s motion as to two of the three sets of materials it requested. D.I. 116. 8 writing as purportedly required by Section 19 of the Settlement Agreement.31 Because the parties’ pretrial briefs were simultaneously exchanged,32 T-Mobile could not address Cox’s belatedly advanced argument at the time. Four days after Cox submitted its pre-trial brief, the parties filed their Joint Pre-Trial Stipulation and [Proposed] Order. Cox did not specify that T-Mobile’s right to enforce Section 9(e) was an open issue of fact or law, but it did repeat its request for a declaration that it had fulfilled its obligation “to negotiate in good faith toward a definitive MVNO agreement. . . with Sprint and later T-Mobile.”33 D Following a five-day trial in August 2021, the Court of Chancery determined that T-Mobile had standing to enforce the Settlement Agreement and that Cox had breached Section 9(e). In the trial court’s view, Section 9(e) contains two promises. First, it “imposes on Cox a present obligation, immediately applicable, that it either refrain from entering the Wireless Mobile Services Market or make a deal with Sprint.”34 Second, it includes a Type II preliminary agreement that kicks in once 31 App. to Opening Br. at A238–40; id. at A1225–26 (“19. Assignability[:] Except as set forth in Section 144, neither this Settlement Agreement nor any rights hereunder may be assigned or otherwise transferred by any Party, in whole or in part, whether voluntarily or by operation of Applicable Law, without the prior written consent of the other Parties. Any purported assignment or other transfer of this Settlement Agreement in contravention of this Section 19 shall be null and void ab initio.”). 32 Id. at A275; see also D.I. 200. 33 App. to Opening Br. at 286 (emphasis added). 34 Tr. at 47. 9 Cox enters an exclusive relationship with T-Mobile and requires both parties to negotiate open issues in good faith.35 The court explained that its interpretation reflects the fact that Section 9(e) served as consideration for Sprint’s agreement to drop the patent suit against Cox. According to the court, if we were to read Section 9(e) as “simply an agreement to negotiate in good faith, Section 9(e) would be nearly worthless to Sprint.”36 Instead, the trial court interpreted the Settlement Agreement to allow “T-Mobile [to] hold Cox to its original promise: provide Wireless Mobile Services with T-Mobile, or not at all.”37 In fashioning a remedy for Cox’s breach, the Court of Chancery considered extrinsic evidence.38 It found that, when they signed the Settlement Agreement, “both Cox and Sprint understood that Section 9(e) meant that if Cox wanted to become an MVNO . . . it had to reach an exclusive agreement with Sprint.”39 It also found that T-Mobile’s damages were uncertain and noted that the Settlement Agreement contains a stipulation providing that any violations would justify 35 Id. at 53. 36 Id. at 52. 37 Id. at 53. 38 The court found facts “not to inform the unambiguous contract language, but because they inform the equities of remedying Cox’s breach[.]” Id. at 10. Because we hold that Section 9(e) unambiguously creates a Type II preliminary agreement—and nothing more—we do not consider extrinsic evidence. 39 Id. 10 “preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.”40 For these reasons, the court permanently enjoined Cox from violating Section 9(e). The implementing order states: Cox is hereby permanently enjoined from offering Wireless Mobile Service (as defined in Section 9(e) of the Settlement Agreement and explained in the Ruling) by partnering with any mobile network operator other than T- Mobile to provide Wireless Mobile Service before entering into an MVNO agreement with T-Mobile.41 Cox timely appealed. We granted the parties’ request for expedited proceedings on October 27, 2021, and heard oral argument according to the schedule proposed by the parties on January 12, 2022.