Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
13-12-05 Motorola Mobility Opposition to Microsoft Motion to Transfer

13-12-05 Motorola Mobility Opposition to Microsoft Motion to Transfer

Ratings: (0)|Views: 16,204|Likes:
Published by Florian Mueller

More info:

Published by: Florian Mueller on Dec 06, 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

12/09/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
No. 14-1089 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington corporation,
 Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. MOTOROLA, INC., GENERAL INSTRUMENT CORPORATION, MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC,
 Defendants-Appellants.
MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC., GENERAL INSTRUMENT CORPORATION,
 Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington corporation,
 Defendants-Appellees.
 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington in Case No. 2:10-cv-01823-JLR, Judge James L. Robart
 APPELLANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MICROSOFT’S MOTION
 TO TRANSFER FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Case: 14-1089 Document: 19-1 Page: 1 Filed: 12/05/2013
 
 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
 
BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 2
 
A.
 
The District Court’s Consolidation of Motorola’s Patent Infringement Complaint With Microsoft’s Breach of Contract
Claim ..................................................................................................... 2
 
B.
 
Motorola’s Interlocutory Appeal To The Ninth Circuit
 ........................ 4
 
C.
 
Proceedings In The Washington District Court On The Breach Of Contract Claim ................................................................................. 5
 
D.
 
The District Court’s Order Entering Partia
l Judgment Under Rule 54(b) .............................................................................................. 7
 
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 8
 
I.
 
JURISDICTION OVER THIS APPEAL PROPERLY LIES IN THIS COURT ............................................................................................................ 8
 
A.
 
This Court Has Jurisdiction Over An Appeal From A Consolidated Case In Which One Complaint Asserts Patent Infringement .......................................................................................... 8
 
B.
 
This Court Has Jurisdiction For The Additional Reason That The District Court Permitted Constructive Amendment of
Microsoft’s Contract Claim To Incorporate Substantial Iss
ues Of Patent Law ...................................................................................... 13
 
II.
 
THE NINTH CIRCUIT WOULD NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THIS APPEAL UNDER THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE ................................................................................................... 18
 
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 20
 
Case: 14-1089 Document: 19-1 Page: 2 Filed: 12/05/2013
 
 ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases
 Atari, Inc. v. JS & A Grp., Inc.
, 747 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ...................................................................... 9, 12
Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Skylink Tech., Inc.
, 381 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 14
Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp.
, 486 U.S. 800 (1988) ...................................................................... 9, 13, 14, 17, 18
CytoLogix Corp. v. Ventana Medical Systems, Inc.
, 513 F.3d 271 (1st Cir. 2008) ......................................................................... 11, 12
 Eli Lilly & Co. v. Aradigm Corp.
, 376 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 14
Gunn v. Minton
, 133 S. Ct. 1059 (2013) .................................................................................. 13, 17
 Holmes Grp., Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc.
, 535 U.S. 826 (2002) .......................................................................... 4, 5, 9, 11, 13
 In re Innotron Diagnostics
, 800 F.2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1986) .......................................................................... 10
 Interpart Corp v. Italia
, 777 F.2d 678 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .................................................................. 9, 10, 19
 Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc.
, 696 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 5, 20
 Midwest Indus., Inc. v. Karavan Trailers, Inc.,
 175 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .......................................................................... 10
 Nobelpharma AB v. Implant Innovations, Inc.
,
 
141 F.3d 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................ 9
 Parental Guide of Texas, Inc. v. Thomson, Inc.
, 446 F.3d 1265 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 17
 Portney v. CIBA Vision Corp
.,
401 Fed. App’
x 526 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................... 16, 17
Thompson v. Haynes
, 305 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .......................................................................... 12
U.S. Valves, Inc. v. Dray
, 212 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .................................................................... 16, 17
Case: 14-1089 Document: 19-1 Page: 3 Filed: 12/05/2013

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)//-->