1 / 8

Microsoft vs. Motorola INC. and Motorola Mobility

Microsoft vs. Motorola INC. and Motorola Mobility. Javin Nakamura AMST 334 10:30am-11:20am. Brief Summary.

anitra
Télécharger la présentation

Microsoft vs. Motorola INC. and Motorola Mobility

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Microsoft vs. Motorola INC. and Motorola Mobility Javin Nakamura AMST 334 10:30am-11:20am

  2. Brief Summary • This case includes the transfer of a case from the Western District of Wisconsin.  It is primarily a FRAND lawsuit between Microsoft and Motorola.  Microsoft initiated litigation alleging breach of contract and promissory estoppel concerning Motorola’s self-declared standard essential patents.  Motorola seeks to declare that Microsoft has infringed its valid patents, and has done so without accepting a license.  The dispute largely rests on what is a FRAND rate, with Microsoft asserting the appropriate calculation of FRAND is a comparable to patent pools or an assessment of the value of the patents before being included in a standard.  Motorola contends that the correct FRAND rate is the result of a hypothetical bilateral negotiation between the two companies. • Plaintiff: Judge: James L. Robart • Defendant:

  3. Timeline Part 1 • November 10, 2010 – Motorola (and its wholly-owned subsidiary General Instrument Corporation) files Complaint against Microsoft in the Western District of Wisconsin Case No. 3:10-cv-699 (W.D. Wis. Filing #1) alleging patent infringement of three utility patents. • December 21, 2010 – Microsoft files Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, Motion to Transfer Venue in Wisconsin (Wisconsin Filing #25). • January 25, 2011 – Microsoft files Answer and Counterclaim against Motorola (Filing #37 in W.D. Wis.). Microsoft asserts affirmative defenses, including non-infringement, equitable estoppel, and lack of irreparable harm. Microsoft includes counterclaims of patent infringement, but contends that the claims can be properly addressed only by first-filed case – the Western District of Washington. Microsoft assets Motorola infringement of two utility patents and breach of RAND licensing agreements, and requests declaratory judgments of promissory estoppel and wavier. • February 18, 2011 – Judge Crabb of W.D. Wisconsin grants Microsoft’s Motion to Transfer Venue to W.D. Washington. • June 15, 2011 – Motorola files its Answer to the Complaint and the allegations from Microsoft’s Counterclaim from the Western District of Wisconsin (Filings #67 and #68). This contains a long narration of Motorola’s position regarding SEPs. Motorola also filed a Counterclaim requesting the court declare that Motorola has complied with its FRAND requirements, and that Microsoft has repudiated and rejected any right to a license under FRAND terms. • March 9, 2012 – Microsoft files its Answer to the Counterclaims asserted by Motorola in Filings #67 and 68 (Filings # 192 and 193). • March 28, 2012 – Microsoft files for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (Filing #210).

  4. Timeline Part II • April 11, 2012 – Court Grants Microsoft’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order to stop Motorola from enforcing any injunctive relief it obtains in Germany (Filing #261). • May 14, 2012 – Court Grants Microsoft’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction(Filing #310). This preliminary injunction shall remain in effect until this court is able to determine whether injunctive relief is an appropriate remedy for Motorola to seek with respect to Microsoft’s alleged infringement of Motorola’s standard essential patents. • July 16, 2012 – Court grants Joint Order by the parties to stay all patent infringement related claims (Filing #360). This includes case numbers 10-cv-1823; 11-cv-595; and 11-cv-1408. • November 13, 2012 – Trial Begins. • November 20, 2012 – Trial Completed. • December 14, 2012 – Microsoft files Post Trial Brief regarding Google’s AVC Patent Portfolio License with MPEG LA (Filing #614).

  5. Timeline Part III • December 17, 2012 – Post Trial briefs and Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed by both parties. Motorola reiterates that the appropriate FRAND rate should be set by a hypothetical bilateral negotiation, and maintains that its offer letters to Microsoft were made in good faith. Microsoft contends that the court should look to appropriate comparables when determining the FRAND rate, such as the MPEG LA license, the VIA license, and bilateral ex-post agreements. Filing #622 – Motorola brief on Google MPEG LA License Agreement Filing #623 – Defendants Motorola et al Post Trial Brief Filing #624 – Defendants Proposed Findings of Fact Filing #625 – Microsoft Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Filing #626 – Microsoft Post Trial Brief • December 31, 2012 – Judge Robart orders hearing and oral arguments on the Google-MPEG LA license agreement for January 28, 2013 (Filing #637). • January 23, 2013 – Microsoft and Motorola both submit briefs in response to Judge Robart’s December 31, 2012 Order in which they both address whether the court should consider extrinsic evidence in evaluating the impact of the MPEG LA license (Filings #640 (Microsoft) and #642 (Motorola)).

  6. Final Verdict • Microsoft wins the lawsuit against Motorola. • U.S. District Court Judge James Robartruled that Motorola could not ban the sale of Microsoft products that the mobile maker alleges violate its H.264 patents. The ruling means that the Xbox and Windows, along with other Microsoft products, won't be banned from sale in the U.S. The ruling also blocks Motorola from banning Microsoft product sales in Germany. • Judge Robart's ruling, which was announced Friday, is not the final say on the matter. Both companies wrapped up oral arguments in their trial last month and the judge is not expected to render a final decision until the spring. At that time, he could decide the terms of licensing and what a reasonable royalty rate might be.

  7. Ethical Conclusion

  8. references • http://www.patentprogress.org/cases/microsoft-v-motorola-inc-and-motorola-mobility-inc-w-d-of-wa/ • http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57556769-75/microsoft-wins-big-one-in-motorola-patent-infringement-suit/ IMAGE REFERENCES • http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/03/Xbox-360-Consoles-Infobox.png/250px-Xbox-360-Consoles-Infobox.png • http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Motorola_Defy_crop_2.jpg • http://cloudtimes.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Motorola-Mobility-and-google-logo_620x350.jpg • http://cdn3.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/5142552/mslogo_large_verge_medium_landscape.jpg • http://seattletimes.com/ABPub/2009/06/24/2002250763.jpg • http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/a4/91/a491c5d8de9c1811e0e827df3da05449.png?itok=nxaXAABk

More Related