Opinion ID: 3178457
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Supp. 3d at 805 n.10.

Text: In February 2014, T-Mobile and Nokia Siemens Net- works U.S. filed a combined motion for summary judgment, arguing that “High Point’s patent rights [were] exhausted by the sale of licensed articles that substantially embod[ied] the asserted claims of High Point’s asserted patents.” J.A. 2721. Ericsson U.S. filed a separate summary judgment motion in which it contended that its sales of equipment to T-Mobile were fully authorized by the sublicense it obtained from LM Ericsson. J.A. 1178– 98. Ericsson U.S. further contended that any infringement claim against T-Mobile based on T-Mobile’s use of equipment supplied by Ericsson U.S. was barred by exhaustion. J.A. 1212. On October 15, 2014, the district court granted both summary judgment motions. In the court’s view, the doctrine of patent exhaustion barred all of High Point’s infringement claims because the accused products were sold under valid licenses and sublicenses. See District Court Decision, 53 F. Supp. 3d at 810. The court rejected High Point’s argument that the 1996 cross-licensing agreement between AT&T and Alcatel did not extend to Alcatel Marketing U.S. Id. at 807. It further held that the MGWs Alcatel Marketing U.S. sold to T-Mobile were licensed products, explaining that MGWs were the same “kind” of product that Alcatel sold at the time of its 1996 cross-licensing agreement with AT&T. Id. at 807. HIGH POINT SARL v. T-MOBILE USA, INC. 7 The trial court also concluded that the sales of equipment by Nokia Siemens Networks U.S. to T-Mobile were authorized by the divestment rider which AT&T and Siemens executed in November 1995. Id. at 808. Although High Point argued that no license rights could be conveyed to Nokia Siemens Networks B.V., the parent company of Nokia Siemens Networks U.S., because it never operated as a “separately identifiable business,” the court rejected this contention, stating that “[t]he plain language of the [1995 divestment] rider indicates that [a] divested business need only operate separately from Siemens.” Id. The court likewise found no merit in High Point’s assertion that the 1988 cross-licensing agreement between AT&T and Siemens only authorized the sale of the particular product models that Siemens had sold prior to the time it divested its carrier division. Id. at 808 n.13. In addition, the district court held that Ericsson U.S. had sold equipment to T-Mobile under a valid sublicense from LM Ericsson. Id. at 804–05. In the court’s view, the 1996 cross-licensing agreement between Lucent and LM Ericsson placed no time limits on when sublicenses could be granted. Id. at 805. Finally, the district court held that licensed equipment sold by T-Mobile’s suppliers substantially embodied all of the asserted claims. Id. at 809–10. The court rejected High Point’s argument that “exhaustion only applies if each ‘individual component’ of T-Mobile’s accused network substantially embodie[d] each patent claim at issue,” concluding that such an approach “would severely undercut, if not eviscerate, the doctrine of patent exhaustion.” Id. at 810. After the parties stipulated to the entry of final judgment, J.A. 36, High Point filed a timely appeal with this court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). 8 HIGH POINT SARL v. T-MOBILE USA, INC.