UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MICROSOFT CORPORATION AND MICROSOFT LICENSING GP, Plaintiffs, -against- SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Defendant. Case No. 1:14-CV-6039 (JSR) Hon. Jed S. Rakoff Oral Argument Requested
DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY THE CASE
O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP George A. Riley Andrew Frackman Ian Simmons John Kappos Gary Svirsky Ryan Yagura Brad M. Elias Jeffrey A.N. Kopczynski Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, New York 10036 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 Facsimile: (212) 326-2061
Attorneys for Defendant
Case 1:14-cv-06039-JSR Document 42 Filed 10/10/14 Page 1 of 20
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
The agreement between Samsung and Microsoft is embodied in two interconnected contracts. ............................................ 2
The parties agreed to arbitrate disputes concerning Annual Invoices and Royalty Reports. ...................................................... 5
The Amended Complaint asks this Court to relieve Microsoft of its obligations while enforcing Samsung’s obligations. ........................ 5
The parties’ arbitration agreement is enforceable under the FAA. ................................................................... 6
The arbitrators must decide any questions of arbitrability. .................................................................... 7
The parties’ dispute is arbitrable under the BCA’s plain language. ............................................................... 9
Both counts in the Amended Complaint fit within Section 3.3 of the BCA. ................................................. 9
Both counts in the Amended Complaint fall under the BCA, not the PLA. ................................................ 12
The agreements’ forum-selection provisions do not apply to Microsoft’s claims. ......................................................... 13
i
Case 1:14-cv-06039-JSR Document 42 Filed 10/10/14 Page 2 of 20
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page
CASES
Bank Julius Baer & Co. v. Waxfield Ltd.
, 424 F.3d 278 (2d Cir. 2005),
abrogated on other grounds by Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. Golden Empire Sch. Fin. Auth.
, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16155 (2d Cir. Aug. 21, 2014) ........................................................................................................... 13
Cendant Corp. v. Forbes
, 72 F. Supp. 2d 341 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)....................................................................................... 14
Chelsea Square Textiles, Inc. v. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co.
, 189 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 1999)...................................................................................................... 6
Deloitte Noraudit A/S v. Deloitte Haskins & Sells, U.S.
, 9 F.3d 1060 (2d Cir. 1993)........................................................................................................ 6
Ecopetrol S.A. v. Offshore Exploration & Prod. LLC
, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126829 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2014) .................................................... 14
First Options of Chi., Inc. v. Kaplan
, 514 U.S. 938 (1995) .................................................................................................................. 7
Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. Golden Empire Schools Fin. Auth.
, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16155 (2d Cir. Aug. 21, 2014) .......................................................... 13
Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph
, 531 U.S. 79 (2000) .................................................................................................................... 6
JLM Indus. v. Stolt-Nielsen SA
, 387 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2004).................................................................................................... 11
Khanna v. Am. Express Co.
, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146542 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2011) ...................................................... 9
McAllister Bros. v. A & S Transp. Co.
, 621 F.2d 519 (2d Cir. 1980).................................................................................................... 11
Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp.
, 460 U.S. 1 (1983) ................................................................................................................ 9, 12
Oldroyd v. Elmira Sav. Bank, FSB
, 134 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1998)........................................................................................................ 6
Personal Sec. & Safety Sys. v. Motorola Inc.
, 297 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2002) .................................................................................................. 13 ii
Case 1:14-cv-06039-JSR Document 42 Filed 10/10/14 Page 3 of 20