UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

NOTICE OF DOCKETING
13-1417 - Motorola Mobility LLC v. ITC
Date of docketing: May 23, 2013
Appeal from: U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation no. 337-TA-745
Appellant(s): Motorola Mobility, LLC
Critical dates include:
Date of docketing. See Fed. Cir. R. 12 and 15.
Certified list. See Fed. Cir. R. 17.
Entry of appearance. (Due within 14 days of the date of docketing.) See Fed. Cir. R. 47.3.
Certificate of interest. (Due within 14 days of the date of docketing.) See Fed. Cir. R. 47.4.
Docketing Statement. (Due within 30 days of the date of docketing.) [Only in cases where all parties are
represented by counsel. See the en banc order dated September 18, 2006, and guidelines available at
www.cafc.uscourts.gov.]
Requests for extensions of time. See Fed. Cir. R. 26 and 27. N.B. Del ayed requests are not favored by
the court.
Briefs. See Fed. Cir. R. 31. N.B. You will not receive a separate briefing schedule from the Cl erk's
Office.
Oral Argument Schedule Conflicts: Counsel can expect oral argument to be set within 2 months of the
filing of final brief or appendix in a case. Counsel should advise the clerk's office of any potential conflict that
would interfere with counsel's ability to appear for oral argument, and counsel should provide updates to
inform the clerk's office of any potential conflict as it arises. The clerk's office will make every effort to
accommodate counsel's conflicts if counsel so advises the clerk's office prior to the time that the clerk's office
sets the date for oral argument. After the date for oral argument is set, however, the date for oral argument
will not be postponed except on motion showing compelling circumstances. Counsel should be aware that
the court's future oral argument schedule is posted on the court's website at www.cafc.uscourts.gov under
the oral argument tab.
Pro se parties should refer to the Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants.
Attachments:
Official caption
Copy of petition for review to Agency and counsel for appellee
Rules of Practice (to pro se parties only)
Required forms (to pro se parties only):
o Entry of Appearance
o Informal Brief
o Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (only to petitioners owing the docketing
fee)
Counsel may download the Rules of Practice and required forms from www.cafc.uscourts.gov or call 202.275.8000
for a printed copy.
J an Horbaly
Clerk
cc: Secretary, International Trade Commission
Office of the General Counsel, ITC, 500 E St. SW, Washington, DC 20436
Megan Michele Valentine
Charles Kramer Verhoeven
Case: 13-1417 Document: 1-1 Page: 1 Filed: 05/23/2013 (1 of 14)


Case: 13-1417 Document: 1-1 Page: 2 Filed: 05/23/2013 (2 of 14)
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT



Official Caption
1



2013-1417


MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC
(formerly known as Motorola Mobility, Inc.),

Appellant,

v.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Appellee.







On appeal from the United States International Trade Commission in
Investigation No. 337-TA-745.







Authorized Abbreviated Caption
2


MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC V ITC, 2013-1417

1
Required for use on petitions, formal briefs and appendices, court opinions, and court orders.
FRAP 12(a); 32(a).
2
Authorized for use only on items not requiring the Official Caption as listed in note 1.

Case: 13-1417 Document: 1-2 Page: 1 Filed: 05/23/2013 (3 of 14)
QUinn emanueltrlallawvers I new vork
51 Madison Avenue, zznd Floor, New York, New York woro-r6or j TEL (:2.12) 849-7000 FAX (ztz) 849-7100
May 21,2013
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Jan Horbaly
Circuit Executive & Clerk of Court
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
717 Madison Place, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20439
Re: Motorola Mobility LLC v. ITC, No. 13-
Dear Mr. Horbaly:
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NO.
(212) 849-7136
WRITER'S INTERNET ADDRESS
markbaker@quinnemanuel.com
Enclosed for filing are the original and three copies of Motorola Mobility LLC's Petition for
Review of the United State International Trade Commission's Final Determination in
Investigation No. 337-TA-745 finding no violation of Section 337 as to U.S. Patent No.
6,246,862. Also enclosed is a check for $450.00 made out to "Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals,
Federal Circuit" for the filing fee associated with Motorola's Petition for Review. Finally, also
enclosed for filing are the Entries of Appearance for Edward J. DeFranco, Alexander Rudis,
Mark Baker, and Matthew A. Traupman. Please feel free to contact me if you have any
questions.
Very truly yours,
. . , . , . , - . . ~ . . -o ...
Mark D. Baker
Enclosures
quinn emanuel uruuhan & sullivan, liP
LOS ANGELES I SAN FRANCISCO I SILICON VALLEY I CHICAGO I WASHINGTON, DC I LONDON I TOKYO I MANN HElM I MOSCOW I HAMBURG I PARIS
Case: 13-1417 Document: 1-3 Page: 1 Filed: 05/23/2013 (4 of 14)
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
APPEAL NO. __
MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC,
Appellant,
v.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Appellee.
On Appeal from the United States International Trade Commission,
Investigation No. 337-TA-745
MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC'S PETITION FOR REVIEW
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1295(a)(6), 19 U.S.C. 1337, Fed. R. App. P. 15(a)
and Fed. Cir. R. 15(a)(2), Motorola Mobility LLC
1
("Appellant") hereby petitions
the Court for review of and appeal from the International Trade Commission's
"Notice of a Commission Decision Finding No Violation of Section 337 As To
U.S. Patent No. 6,246,862; Termination of Investigation With a Finding of No
1
On June 22, 2012, Motorola Mobility, Inc., the complainant in
Investigation No. 337-TA-745, was converted into a Delaware limited liability
company, changing its name to Motorola Mobility LLC.
Case: 13-1417 Document: 1-3 Page: 2 Filed: 05/23/2013 (5 of 14)
Violation" entered on April 22, 2013 (attached as Exhibit 1) and its underlying
determinations, including, but not limited to, the Commission Opinion issued on
April 29, 2013 (attached as Exhibit 2) and the Initial Determination issued on
December 18, 2012 (attached as Exhibit 3). This case was styled before the United
States International Trade Commission as In the Matter of Certain Wireless
Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices,
Computers and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-745.
A check for the docketing fee of $450.00 payable to "Clerk of Court, United
States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit" as required by Fed. Cir. R. 52 is
also enclosed.
Dated: May 21, 2013
Respectfully submitted,
~ ~ e - n __________ _
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 875-6600
Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
Edward J. DeFranco
Alexander Rudis
Mark D. Baker
Matthew A. Traupman
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
51 Madison A venue, 22nd Floor
2
Case: 13-1417 Document: 1-3 Page: 3 Filed: 05/23/2013 (6 of 14)
New York, NY 10010
Telephone: (212) 849-7000
Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
David A. Nelson
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
500 West Madison Street, Suite 2450
Chicago, IL 60661
Telephone: (312) 463-2965
Facsimile: (312) 463-2962
Counsel for Motorola Mobility LLC
3
Case: 13-1417 Document: 1-3 Page: 4 Filed: 05/23/2013 (7 of 14)
EXHIBIT 1
Case: 13-1417 Document: 1-3 Page: 5 Filed: 05/23/2013 (8 of 14)
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of
CERTAIN WIRELESS
COMMUNICATION DEVICES,
PORTABLE MUSIC AND DATA
PROCESSING DEVICES, COMPUTERS
AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
Investigation No. 337-TA-745
NOTICE OF COMMISSION DECISION FINDING NO VIOLATION OF SECTION 337
AS TO U.S. PATENT NO. 6,246,862; TERMINATION OF INVESTIGATION WITH A
FINDING OF NO VIOLATION
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has found no
violation of 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the above-captioned
investigation with respect to U.S. Patent No. 6,246,862 ("the '862 patent"). The investigation is
terminated with a finding of no violation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan M. Valentine, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20436,
telephone (202) 708-2301. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this
investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to
5:15p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the
Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at http://www. us it c. gov. The
public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS)
at http://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can
be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation on
November 8, 2010, based on a complaint filed by Motorola Mobility, Inc. of Libertyville, Illinois
("Motorola"). 75 Fed. Reg. 68619-20 (Nov. 8, 2010). The complaint alleges violations of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 ("section 337"), in the
importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States
after importation of certain wireless communication devices, portable music and data processing
devices, computers and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S.
Patent Nos. 6,272,333 ("the '333 patent"); 6,246,697 ("the '697 patent"); and 5,636,223
("the '223 patent"), the '862 patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,359,317 ("the '317 patent"), and U.S.
Case: 13-1417 Document: 1-3 Page: 6 Filed: 05/23/2013 (9 of 14)
.Patent No. 7,751,826 ("the '826 patent"). The complaint further alleges the existence of a
domestic industry. The Commission's notice of investigation named Apple Inc. of Cupertino,
California ("Apple") as respondent. The Office of Unfair Import Investigation ("OUII") was
named as a participating party, however, on July 29,2011, OUII withdrew from further
participation in the investigation. See Commission Investigative Staffs Notice of
Nonparticipation (July 29, 2011). The Commission later partially terminated the investigation as
to the '317 patent and the '826 patent. Notice (June 28, 2011); Notice (Jan 27, 2012).
On April 24, 2012, the presiding administrative law judge ("ALJ") issued his final initial
determination ("Final ID"), finding a violation of section 337 as to the '697 patent and no
violation of section 337 as to the '223 patent, the '333 patent, and the '862 patent. On May 9,
2012, the ALJ issued a recommended determination on remedy and bonding.
On June 25, 20 l 2, the Commission determined to review the Final ID in part. 77 Fed.
Reg. 38826-29 (June 29, 20 12). On August 24, 20 l 2, the Commission found no violation with
respect to the '333 patent, the '697 patent, and the '223 patent. 77 Fed Reg 52759-761 (Aug.
30, 2012). The Commission remanded the investigation to the ALJ with respect to the '862
patent upon reversing his finding that the patent is invalid as indefinite. Id; see Order (Aug. 24,
20 12). Specifically, the Commission instructed the ALJ to make findings regarding infringement,
validity, and domestic industry concerning the '862 patent. The Commission's Order instructed
the ALJ to set a new target as necessary to accommodate the remand proceedings. On October I,
2012, the ALJ issued Order No. 36, setting the target date for completion of the remand
proceedings as April22, 2013. Order No. 36 (Oct. I, 2012). On October 18,2012, the
Commission determined not to review the ID setting the new target date. Notice (Oct. 18, 20 12).
On December 18, 2012, the ALJ issued his final initial determination on remand
("Remand ID"), finding no violation of section 337 with respect to the '862 patent. In particular,
the ALJ found that the relevant accused products infringe claim 1 of the '862 patent literally and
under the doctrine of equivalents, but that claim 1 is invalid as anticipated by U.S. Patent No.
6,052,464 to Harris ("Harris '464"). The ALJ further found that claim 1 is not invalid for
obviousness in light of Harris '464 in combination with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in
the art or in combination with U.S. Patent No. 5,894,298 to Hoeksma ("Hoeksma '298"). The
ALJ also found that Motorola has satisfied the economic and technical prongs of the domestic
industry requirement with respect to the '862 patent.
On January 7, 2013, Motorola petitioned for review of the Remand ID's construction of
the limitation "a touch sensitive input device" of claim 1 of the '862 patent and the Remand ID's
finding that claim 1 of the '862 patent is invalid as anticipated by Harris '464. Also on January 7,
2013, Apple filed a contingent petition for review of the Remand ID's findings that the relevant
accused products infringe claim 1 of the '862 patent literally and under the doctrine of
equivalents.
On February 19,2013, the Commission determined to review the Remand ID in part. 78
Fed Reg 12785-86 (Feb. 25, 2013). Specifically, the Commission determined to review the
Remand ID' s construction of the limitation "touch sensitive input device" in claim 1 of the '862
2
Case: 13-1417 Document: 1-3 Page: 7 Filed: 05/23/2013 (10 of 14)
patent. The Commission also determined to review the Remand ID's finding that the accused
products literally infringe claim I. The Commission further determined to review the Remand
!D's finding that claim I of the '862 patent is anticipated and its finding that claim I was not
shown to be obvious. The Commission determined not to review the remaining issues in the
Remand ID and adopted those findings. In connection with the question of whether claim I of
the '862 patent is obvious, the Commission posed the following question to the parties:
Does the evidence in the record support a finding that claim I of the '862
patent is obvious in view of Harris '464 in combination with the
knowledge of one of ordinruy skill in the art or in combination with
Hoeksma '298 where the evidence demonstrates that the existence of
portable communication devices using "touch sensitive input devices,"
including touch screens, were known in the art prior to the filing of the
application leading to the '862 patent and is disclosed in Hoeksma '298?
In discussing this issue, please refer to the teachings of the references, the
knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of
the '862 patent application, and the evidence in the record regarding the
motivation to combine Harris '464 with the knowledge of one of ordinary
skill in the art or with Hoeksma '298. Also, please address whether there
are any secondary considerations that would prevent a finding of
obviousness.
78 Fed. Reg. at 12786.
On March 8, 2013, Motorola and Apple filed initial submissions in response to the
Commission's Notice of Review. On March 15,2013, Motorola filed a response to Apple's
opening brief. Also on March 15,2013, Apple filed a response to Motorola's opening brief.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the ALJ's Remand ID and the
parties' submissions, the Commission has determined to terminate the investigation with a
finding of no violation of section 337 with respect to the '862 patent. Specifically, the
Commission construes the claim limitation "touch sensitive input device" in claim l of the '862
patent in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning, which does not include any device that
is actuated by physical force, such as a conventional pushbutton keypad. The Commission
affirms the Remand !D's finding that the accused products literally infringe claim I of the '862
patent based on the finding that communication of the input signal is actually disabled when the
proximity sensor is triggered in the accused products, but vacates and does not reach the Remand
ID's finding that communication of the input signal is effectively disabled at the lower sampling
rate.
The Commission reverses the Remand ID's finding that Harris '464 anticipates claim I
of the '862 patent. The Commission further finds that Apple has shown by clear and convincing
evidence that claim I of the '862 patent is obvious in view of Harris '464 in combination with
the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art and in view of Harris '4()4 in combination with
Hoeksma '298.
3
Case: 13-1417 Document: 1-3 Page: 8 Filed: 05/23/2013 (11 of 14)
The investigation is terminated. A Commission Opinion will issue shortly.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in sections 210.45, .49 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 C.F.R. 210.45, .49).
By qrder of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton
Acting Secretary to the Commission
Issued: April22, 2013
4
Case: 13-1417 Document: 1-3 Page: 9 Filed: 05/23/2013 (12 of 14)
CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 21th day of May, 2013, two copies of
MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC'S PETITION FOR REVIEW and the ENTRIES
OF APPEARANCE FOR EDWARD J. DeFRANCO, ALEXANDER RUDIS,
MARK BAKER and MATTHEW A. TRAUPMAN were served by First Class
Mail to:
Mark G. Davis
W eil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
1300 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 900
Matthew D. Powers
Tensegrity Law Group LLP
555 Twin Dolphin Drive
Suite 360
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Counsel for Apple Inc.
Mark D. Baker
Case: 13-1417 Document: 1-3 Page: 10 Filed: 05/23/2013 (13 of 14)
I
I
I
I
RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT
United States Court of Appeals
For The Federal circuit
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
Received
From
QVl1c q .
) (NAME) .
_________
(SHORT TITLE) (CASE NO.)
Clerk's Fee for docketing case
Certificate of membership
Certified copy of
Copy of opinion
Copy of documents
Reimbursement fees
Deputy U--f
0
ACCOUNT AMOUNT

-
t

PO
?J
TOTAL
oo
Credit Card 0 Cash 0 Check
. MONEYo
ORDER
058350
Case: 13-1417 Document: 1-4 Page: 1 Filed: 05/23/2013 (14 of 14)