Opinion ID: 4461580
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Discussion of Jury Trial Issues

Text: In January 2015, the parties filed a joint report stipulating to various agreements and understandings about which issues should be decided by a jury. At the time, both legal and equitable claims were still active. TCL’s damages claim for breach of contract was legal. TCL’s claim for the court to set a prospective FRAND rate for the license was equitable. These two claims shared a common issue: whether Ericsson’s licensing offer complied with its FRAND obligations. J.A. 1893–94. Under Dairy Queen, TCL COMMC’N TECH. v. TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM 9 Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469, 472–73 (1962), legal claims must be tried first to a jury where they share common issues with equitable claims. Thus, the parties agreed to a two-step approach: (1) a jury would decide the common issue of whether Ericsson’s offer complied with its FRAND obligation, and (2) if the jury answered no, a bench trial would be conducted to revise terms in the offer to be compliant with FRAND. J.A. 1892–934. By mid-August 2016, all of TCL’s claims and counterclaims seeking damages had been dismissed or were no longer viable in view of other motions. 1 However, Ericsson’s counterclaims seeking damages for patent infringement, which had been stayed by the court, still remained. While Ericsson acknowledged that the claims and counterclaims remaining for adjudication in the upcoming trial only sought specific performance or declaratory judgment as remedies, it insisted that a jury trial was required. According to Ericsson, the release payment term, which was “money for [TCL’s] past patent infringement,” was “decidedly legal” and thus entitled “Ericsson to a jury on all asserted claims.” J.A. 38827–28. The court disagreed. In a January 2017 final pre-trial conference order, the court acknowledged Ericsson’s assertions of its jury trial right but indicated that it had nevertheless decided to proceed with a bench trial. J.A. 48694. On the day of trial, right before the first witness was called, Ericsson renewed its 1 On August 8, 2016, the court granted Ericsson’s motion for partial summary judgment as to no damages for TCL’s state law claims of breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, finding that “TCL ha[d] failed to satisfy its burden on summary judgment to come forward with admissible evidence to create a triable issue of fact on damages.” J.A. 38805. 10 TCL COMMC’N TECH. v. TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM objection, noting for the record that it had not “waived [its] right to a jury trial.” J.A. 51642.