Opinion ID: 2822000
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Federal Circuit’s Transfer

Text: Motorola nevertheless appealed from the final judgment in this case to the Federal Circuit. In support of Federal Circuit jurisdiction, Motorola maintained that the district court’s consolidation of Microsoft’s breach of contract case with Motorola’s patent infringement suit—the latter of which would fall within the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction on MICROSOFT CORP. V. MOTOROLA, INC. 19 appeal—conferred Federal Circuit appellate jurisdiction over both cases. See Microsoft, 564 F. App’x at 589. Applying law-of-the-case deference to our prior opinion, the Federal Circuit rejected that argument.10 It noted that the district court did consolidate the two cases under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) in the interest of “judicial economy,” but denied a motion to dismiss Motorola’s patentinfringement claims and re-file them as compulsory counterclaims in the contract case. Id. at 588. In so ruling, the district court reasoned that the facts of the two cases were “not so intertwined and logically connected that considerations of judicial economy and fairness dictate that the issues be resolved in one lawsuit.” Id. Given that ruling, the Federal Circuit held, it was “plausible to conclude, as the Ninth Circuit seems to have done here, that the act of ‘consolidation did not merge the suits into a single cause, or change the rights of the parties.’” Id. at 589 (quoting Johnson v. Manhattan Ry., 289 U.S. 479, 496–97 (1933)) (internal alterations omitted). Because the Federal Circuit found our decision not “clearly erroneous,” it transferred the case. Id. at 589. 10 Motorola had argued that law-of-the-case principles should not apply because “‘neither party nor the Ninth Circuit realized the implications of the consolidation of Motorola’s patent infringement claim with Microsoft’s contract claim’ at the earlier stages of this litigation.” Microsoft, 564 F. App’x at 589. As the Federal Circuit recognized, however, our earlier opinion makes clear that we were quite aware of the consolidation of the cases when we heard the interlocutory appeal and nonetheless determined that we had jurisdiction. See id. (citing Microsoft I, 696 F.3d at 878). 20 MICROSOFT CORP. V. MOTOROLA, INC.