|
''Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola Inc.'', 696 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2012) was a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case about Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) Licensing and foreign anti-suit injunction. The case was originally filed by Microsoft against Motorola in the Western District Court of Washington at November 9, 2010, claiming that Motorola had violated its reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing agreement to which Microsoft was a third-party beneficiary.〔 The district court ruled that a company's agreement with a standards organization to provide Reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms of licensing to all other parties constitutes a contract that is enforceable by third parties. While the U.S. domestic contract litigation had been proceeding, Motorola sued Microsoft in Germany for patent infringement in July 2011. The German district court granted to Motorola an injunction prohibiting Microsoft from selling allegedly infringing products in Germany based on German patent law. Then, Microsoft sought an anti-suit injunction against an injunction of patent infringement in Germany. The district court granted to Microsoft an anti-suit injunction that prevented Motorola from enforcing a foreign patent infringement injunction that Motorola had obtained against Microsoft in Germany. After granting to Microsoft this preliminary injunction, the case was brought to the Appellate court in an interlocutory appeal by Motorola. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's foreign anti-suit injunction for abuse of discretion, and affirmed the District Court's decision.〔 ==Background== Motorola was the holder of patents that were deemed essential to the 802.11 and H.264 industry standards, meaning that it would be necessary to use the ideas embodied in these patents if one were to create a device that would meet these standards.〔 Many standards setting organizations, in an effort to reduce the possibility of patent holdup and increase competition, asked that the holders of any standards-essential patents agree to license these patents on a fair, non-restrictive basis. Motorola had indicated its willingness to license these patents on RAND terms on a worldwide, non-discriminatory basis in letters to both the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) and International Telecommunications Union (ITU).〔 Microsoft had several products that utilized these standards, most notably the Xbox 360 and personal computers running Microsoft Windows. On October 21 and 29, 2010 Motorola sent letters to Microsoft offering to license its standards-essential patents for the 802.11 and H.264 standards respectively. The offer asked for a 2.25% royalty rate on the price of all end products Microsoft sold utilizing the technologies protected by these patents.〔 Microsoft regarded these terms as blatantly unreasonable and responded by filing a breach of contract case against Motorola, claiming that Motorola had violated its agreement with the IEEE and ITU to provide reasonable and non-discriminatory terms of licensing to all potential licensees on a global scale.〔 On July 2011, Motorola responded by filing patent infringement cases against Microsoft in Germany for many products that employed the standards owned by Motorola. Motorola's RAND contracts were directly between Motorola and a standard-setting organization; Microsoft as a third party was not recognized as an involved party by German patent law.〔 On the other hand, in the U.S., on February 27, 2012, the Western District Court of Washington held that Motorola's letters of assurance to the IEEE and ITU which stated that Motorola would provide RAND terms on a global basis to all potential licensees established a contract between Motorola and the standards-setting organizations.〔 Additionally, because the language of the contract had no indication of adding conditions to be eligible for RAND terms, Motorola's claims that a licensee would have to negotiate to be eligible for RAND terms were disregarded.〔 On March 28, 2012, Microsoft moved the district court for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to enjoin Motorola from enforcing any German injunctive relief it might obtain.〔 On May 2, 2012, Motorola won its case in Germany and obtained an injunction against Microsoft's selling infringing products in Germany.〔 The German injunction was not self-enforcing; in order to enforce the judgment, Motorola would need to pay a security bond to cover Microsoft's potential damages, should the infringement ruling be reversed on appeal.〔 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola Inc.」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|