Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
13-08-15 Google Opposition to Participation in Hearing by Verizon Et Al.

13-08-15 Google Opposition to Participation in Hearing by Verizon Et Al.

Ratings: (0)|Views: 25,467 |Likes:
Published by Florian Mueller
August 15, 2013 brief by Google's Motorola opposing request by Verizon et al. to participate in the Federal Circuit hearing on the Apple-Motorola cross-appeal of Judge Posner's ruling
August 15, 2013 brief by Google's Motorola opposing request by Verizon et al. to participate in the Federal Circuit hearing on the Apple-Motorola cross-appeal of Judge Posner's ruling

More info:

Categories:Business/Law
Published by: Florian Mueller on Aug 16, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/18/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 Appeal Nos. 2012-1548, 2012-1549
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
A
PPLE
I
 NC
.
AND
 N
E
XT
 
S
OFTWARE
,
 
I
 NC
.
 
(formerly known as NeXT Computer Inc.),
 Appellants
,v.M
OTOROLA
I
 NC
. (now known as Motorola Solutions, Inc.)
AND
M
OTOROLA
M
OBILITY
,
 
I
 NC
.,
 Appellees-Cross-Appellants
,Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinoisin case no. 11-CV-8540, Judge Richard A. Posner 
 
APPELLEES-CROSS-APPELLANTSMOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC AND MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.'SOPPOSITION TO AMICI CURIAE VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC.ET. AL'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN ORALARGUMENT
Kathleen M. SullivanEdward J. DeFrancoQ
UINN
E
MANUEL
U
RQUHART
&
 
S
ULLIVAN
,
 
LLP51 Madison Ave., 22nd Floor  New York, NY 10010
(212) 849-7000
Charles K. VerhoevenQ
UINN
E
MANUEL
U
RQUHART
&
 
S
ULLIVAN
,
 
LLP50 California St., 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111(415) 875-6600David A. NelsonStephen A. SwedlowQ
UINN
E
MANUEL
U
RQUHART
&
 
S
ULLIVAN
,
 
LLP500 W. Madison St., Suite 2450Chicago, IL 60661(312) 705-7400Brian C. CannonQ
UINN
E
MANUEL
U
RQUHART
&
 
S
ULLIVAN
,
 
LLP555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor Redwood Shores, CA 94065(650) 801-5000
 Attorneys for Motorola Mobility LLC and  Motorola Solutions, Inc.
Case: 12-1548 Document: 209 Page: 1 Filed: 08/15/2013
 
02426.51761/5461935.3
1
OPPOSITION TO AMICI CURIAE'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TOPARTICIPATE IN ORAL ARGUMENT
Appellees-Cross Appellants Motorola Mobility LLC and MotorolaSolutions, Inc. ("Motorola") oppose Amici Curiae Verizon Communications Inc.,the American Association of Advertising Agencies, and Ford Motor Company's("Amici") request for leave to participate in oral argument in this case.This case involves,
inter alia
, Apple and Motorola's appeal and cross-appealfrom the district court's orders excluding the parties' respective damages experts'opinions under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and 
 Daubert 
, and dismissing the parties' claims for damages and injunctive relief on summary judgment. These arerecord-intensive issues relating to specific patents asserted by Motorola and byApple, and expert opinions offered by the parties. In particular, with respect to thedistrict court's treatment of the parties' claims for damages and injunctive relief, on both sides, the issues the Court has been asked to decide relate to whether thedistrict court failed to consider relevant evidence supporting the parties claims, and whether the district court failed to properly apply this Court's damages and injunction law to the facts of the case. These are fact-specific issues, and should not involve the sort of broad policy pronouncements that Amici seek to argue.These issues have been fully briefed by the parties and will be adequatelyaddressed by the parties in oral argument.
Case: 12-1548 Document: 209 Page: 2 Filed: 08/15/2013
 
2
Though Amici suggest that neither party has adequately defended the districtcourt's reasoning regarding damages and equitable relief, and only Amici stand ready to defend the entirety of the district court's reasoning, that is simply not true.Amici styled their brief as in support of "neither party," but every argument madein their brief supports Apple. Amici's brief raises three arguments: (1) injunctiverelief is inappropriate for RAND-encumbered Standards-Essential Patents (Dkt.116 at 3); (2) injunctive relief is inappropriate when the patent at issue covers aminor component in a multi-component device (
id.
at 11); and (3) reasonableroyalty damages should not exceed the value of the patented technology over alternatives at the time of design (
id.
at 17). Each of Amici's arguments echoes anargument made by Apple in response to Motorola's cross-appeal of Judge Posner'srulings dismissing Motorola's claims for damages and injunctive relief. AppleResponse and Reply Br. at 24-32 (arguing that Motorola's reasonable royaltydamages must be limited to the incremental value of the claimed features over available alternatives), 32-36 (arguing that Motorola's patents relate to "trivial"features used by Apple's iPhone and iPad), 40-54 (arguing that Motorola's FRANDcommitment bars injunctive relief).Apple has fully briefed these arguments, is represented by capable counsel,and can adequately address these issues at oral argument. It would befundamentally unfair to allot Amici argument time that in effect will give another 
Case: 12-1548 Document: 209 Page: 3 Filed: 08/15/2013

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->