Opinion ID: 2822000
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Law of the Case, Applied

Text: We, too, apply law-of-the-case deference to our previous jurisdictional determination, as well as to that of the Federal Circuit. In doing so, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s holding in Christianson, which in very similar circumstances highlighted the importance of deferring to prior jurisdictional determinations. Christianson came before the Supreme Court after both the Federal Circuit and the Seventh Circuit had declined to exercise jurisdiction over an antitrust suit with embedded questions of patent validity. Christianson, 486 U.S. at 803–07. Review was initially sought in the Federal Circuit. See id. at 806. That Circuit concluded that it lacked jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Seventh Circuit. See id. The Seventh Circuit then, sua sponte, addressed its own jurisdiction, concluded that the Federal Circuit was “clearly wrong” in transferring the case, and transferred it back. Id. at 806 (quoting 798 F.2d 1051, 1056–57 (7th Cir. 1986)). The Federal Circuit, in turn, stated that it was the Seventh Circuit that was “clearly wrong,” and had “exhibited ‘a monumental misunderstanding of the [Federal Circuit’s] patent jurisdiction.’” Id. at 807 (quoting 822 F.2d 1544, 1547, 1551 n.7 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). Nevertheless, in the “interest of justice,” the Federal Circuit addressed the merits of the case. Id. (quoting 822 F.2d at 1559–60). Faced with this intercircuit jurisdictional standoff, the Supreme Court held, first, that the Seventh Circuit erred in failing to adhere to the Federal Circuit’s jurisdictional determination, and, second, that the Federal Circuit erred in addressing the merits of the case after having determined that it lacked jurisdiction. While a court always has the authority MICROSOFT CORP. V. MOTOROLA, INC. 21 to revisit a prior jurisdictional determination of its own or of a coordinate court, Christianson explained, “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.” Id. at 817 (internal quotation marks omitted). Otherwise, “every borderline case [could] culminate in a perpetual game of jurisdictional ping-pong . . . . Such a state of affairs would undermine public confidence in our judiciary, squander private and public resources, and commit far too much of [the] Court’s calendar to the resolution of fact-specific jurisdictional disputes that lack national importance.” Id. at 818–19. Christianson concluded that because the Federal Circuit’s initial jurisdictional determination was “plausible,” the Seventh Circuit, and the Federal Circuit on its second review, should have adhered to it. Id. at 819. Motorola maintains that Christianson’s firm admonition does not cover the present circumstances. We owe no deference to our earlier opinion, Motorola argues, because the jurisdictional question is different now than it was when this case was previously before the panel. The bench trial on the RAND rate “constructively amended” the complaint, it contends, so that what was once a simple breach of contract case has morphed into a case necessarily requiring the determination of a “substantial question of federal patent law.” Id. at 809. We disagree. The district court’s decision to hold a trial on the RAND rate, whether or not doing so constituted a constructive amendment of the complaint, does not in any manner affect the application of law-of-the-case deference to this appeal. We were aware of the district court’s plans to determine the RAND rate in Microsoft I; indeed, that 22 MICROSOFT CORP. V. MOTOROLA, INC. proceeding-to-come was a major subject of Motorola’s briefing. See Microsoft I, 696 F.3d at 879; Opening Br. of Defs.-Appellants, Microsoft I, 696 F.3d 872, No. 12-35352, 2012 WL 2132503, at –32. Yet, we determined that we would have jurisdiction over the final appeal in the anti-suit injunction appeal. Furthermore, as we have indicated, we owe law-of-the-case deference as well to the Federal Circuit’s decision to transfer the case, a decision made after the district court held the RAND bench trial.