Scribd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MICROSOFT CORPORATION Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

et al

.Defendants,andMOTOROLA MOBILITYLLC600 North U.S. Highway 45Libertyville, IL 60048,Proposed Intervenor-Defendant.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01063-RWR MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISSPURSUANT TO RULES 12(b)(6) AND 12(b)(1)

Proposed Intervenor-DefendantMotorola MobilityLLC (“Motorola”)hereby respectfully moves to dismiss Microsoft Corporation’s (“Microsoft”) complaint, which amounts to an unprecedented attempt to circumvent the administrative processwhereinCustoms and Border Protection (“Customs”) enforces exclusion ordersissued by the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Section 337”). Although it has wellestablished, readily availableadministrative process at the ITC to obtain the very same relief (including interim relief) it seeks here, Microsoft is askingthis Court to take action that is extraordinary, and, indeed, unprecedented: to intervene in the administrative process,to interpret the ITC’s exclusion order as desired by Microsoft but without benefit of illumination from the

Case 1:13-cv-01063-RWR Document 20 Filed 08/02/13 Page 1 of 3

2ITC itself,to interfere withCustoms’exercise of enforcement discretion as informed by its consultations with the ITC, and to compel Customs to exclude Motorola’s mobile phones from the United States and to recall those phones that have already been imported. This Court should reject the instant action at the threshold and dismiss–in particular, because Microsoft’s recourse should be to the ITC and then, if aggrieved, to the Federal Circuit, and also because the instant dispute will remainunripe for adjudication unless and until Customs actually refuses to enforce an on-point exclusion order of the ITC. For these reasons and those elaborated upon in the accompanying memorandum of points and authorities, Microsoft’s complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief or, in the alternative, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.Dated: August 2, 2013Respectfully submitted,By:/s

Paul F. Brinkman

Paul F. Brinkman(D.C. Bar No. 441,681) paulbrinkman@quinnemanuel.comDerek L. Shaffer(D.C. Bar No. 478,775) derekshaffer@quinnemanuel.comQUINNEMANUELURQUHART&

SULLIVAN,LLP1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20004Telephone: (202) 538-8000Facsimile: (202) 538-8100Charles K. Verhoeven charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.comKevin Smith kevinsmith@quinnemanuel.comQUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP50 California Street, 22nd Floor


3San Francisco, California 94111Telephone: (415) 875-6600Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 Edward J. DeFranco eddefranco@quinnemanuel.comMatthew A. Traupman matthewtraupman@quinnemanuel.comQUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, New York 10010Telephone: (212) 849-7000Facsimile: (212) 849-7100

Counsel for Proposed Intervenor-Defendant Motorola MobilityLLC
