Scribd

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


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
