No. 14-35393
I
N
T
HE
F
OR
T
HE
N
INTH
C
IRCUIT
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation
Plaintiff-Appellee
,
v. MOTOROLA, INC., MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC., and GENERAL INSTRUMENT CORPORATION
Defendants-Appellants
.
On Appeal From The United States District Court For The Western District Of Washington At Seattle
OPENING BRIEF OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
Brian C. Cannon QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor Redwood Shores, CA 94065 (650) 801-5000 Kathleen M. Sullivan Ellyde R. Thompson QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 51 Madison Avenue 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010 (212) 849-7000
Case: 14-35393 09/15/2014 ID: 9241412 DktEntry: 28-1 Page: 1 of 73
i
RULE 26.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 26.1, Motorola Mobility LLC (f/k/a Motorola Mobility, Inc.) states that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Google Inc., a publicly held company. The stock of Motorola Solutions, Inc. (f/k/a Motorola, Inc.) is publicly traded. No publicly held entity owns 10 percent or more of the stock of Motorola Solutions, Inc. Motorola Solutions, Inc. has no parent corporation. Arris Group purchased the entity formerly known as General Instrument Corp. in April 2013. The patents in suit formerly owned by General Instrument Corp. now belong to Motorola Mobility LLC.
Case: 14-35393 09/15/2014 ID: 9241412 DktEntry: 28-1 Page: 2 of 73
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
RULE 26.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ....................................... i PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................................................... 1
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .......................................................................... 3
ISSUES PRESENTED ............................................................................................... 3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 4
A.
Motorola’s SEPs And SSO Commitments
............................................ 5
B.
Microsoft’s Actions Against Motorola
................................................. 6
C.
Motorola’s Offers To License Its SEPs
................................................ 7
D.
Motorola’s Responsive Actions Against Microsoft
.............................. 8
E.
The District Court’s Bifurcation Of The Case
...................................... 9
F.
The Bench Trial On The RAND Rate ................................................. 10
G.
The Jury Trial On Breach .................................................................... 12
H.
The Post-Trial Rulings ........................................................................ 14
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................... 15
STANDARD OF REVIEW ..................................................................................... 17
ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 18
I.
JURISDICTION OVER THIS APPEAL PROPERLY LIES IN THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT .................................................................................... 18
II.
THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN ISSUING THE RAND ORDER ...... 20
A.
The District Court Erred In Severing The RAND-Rate Determination From The Overall Determination Of Good Faith ....... 20
B.
The District Court Erred In Issuing An Advisory Opinion ................. 22
Case: 14-35393 09/15/2014 ID: 9241412 DktEntry: 28-1 Page: 3 of 73