Cases

OPINION BERZON, Circuit Judge: We live in an age in which the intercon-nectivity of a wide range of modern technological products is vital. To achieve that interconnection, patent-holders often join together in compacts requiring licensing certain patents on reasonable and non *1030

804 F.Supp.2d 1271 (2011) MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC., Plaintiff, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendants. Case No. 10-24063-CIV. United States District Court, S.D. Florida, Miami Division. August 17, 2011. *1273 Amanda Wieker, Kevin J. Post, Megan F. Raymond, Priti Langer, R. Andrew Schwentker, Ropes & Gray, LLP, Washington, DC, Br

JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged: AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

OPINION BERZON, Circuit Judge: In this interlocutory appeal, Motorola appeals from the district court’s preliminary injunction to enjoin Motorola temporarily from enforcing a patent injunction that it obtained against Microsoft in Germany. We review the district court’s grant of a foreign anti-suit injunction under the deferential abuse-of-discretion sta

ORDER ON PARTIES’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS JAMES L. ROBART, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Before the court is Microsoft Corporation’s (“Microsoft”) motion for partial summary judgment of breach of contract and summary judgment on Motorola’s third, fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth, and ninth affirmative defenses and second counterclaim. (Microsoft Mot. (Dkt. ## 727 (redacted), 729 (

ORDER JAMES L. ROBART, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) moves to exclude testimony of Charles R. Donohoe and Dr. R. Sukumar. (Microsoft Mot. (Dkt. # 396).) Mr. Donohoe is an expert who offers his opinion as to a reasonable and non discriminatory (“RAND”) royalty for Defendants Motorola, Inc., Motorola Mobility, Inc., and General Instrument Corpora

ORDER JAMES L. ROBART, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Microsoft Corporation’s (“Microsoft”) motion for summary judgment (“Microsoft’s Motion”) for breach of contract (Microsoft Mot. (Dkt. # 236)), and Defendants Motorola, Inc., Motorola Mobility, Inc., and General Instrument Corporation’s (collectively, “Motorola”) motion for summary ju

ORDER JAMES L. ROBART, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Microsoft Corporation’s (“Microsoft”) motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (“Microsoft’s Motion”).1 (Mot. (Dkt. # 209).) The court heard the oral argument of counsel on April 11, 2012, and has also considered all pleadings on fi

RADER, Chief Judge. The International Trade Commission determined that Motorola Mobility LLC (Motorola) violated § 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337, by importing and selling mobile devices that infringe Microsoft Corporation’s U.S. Patent No. 6,370,566 (’566 patent). Because substantial evidence supports the Commission’s determinations that Motorola

PROST, Circuit Judge, concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part. I join the majority opinion with respect to many of the issues discussed therein. However, I respectfully dissent with respect to the proper construction of the “heuristic” claim terms in the '949 patent. Additionally, I dissent from the majority’s decision to vacate the district court’s grant of summary judgment

Case: 21-1555 Document: 77 Page: 1 Filed: 11/04/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ UNILOC USA, INC., UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2021-1555 ____________________

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a  Washington corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 12-35352 v.  D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01823-JLR MOTOROLA, INC.; MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.; GENERAL OPINION INSTRUMENT CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellant

OPINION and ORDER BARBARA B. CRABB, District Judge. This case originated in the International Trade Commission, where defendant Motorola Mobility, Inc. filed an infringement action against plaintiff Apple, Inc., seeking an exclusion order that would have prevented Apple from selling its allegedly infringing products in the United States. After the case had been pending for a few months in the Commission,

ORDER LEONARD P. STARK, District Judge. WHEREAS, Magistrate Judge Fallon issued a Report and Recommendation (D.I. 61) dated August 3, 2012; WHEREAS, the Report and Recommendation recommends that the Court DENY as moot Defendants’ motion to dismiss the original complaint (D.I. 30); and GRANT Defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint (D.I. 41).

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT JAMES L. ROBART, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff Microsoft Corporation’s (“Microsoft”) motion for partial summary judgment (Mot. (Dkt. # 77)). The court has reviewed Microsoft’s motion, Defendants Motorola, Inc., Motorola Mobility, Inc., and General Instrument Corporation’s (col

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 22-2370 & 22-2413 MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. and MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS MALAYSIA SDN. BHD., Plaintiffs-Appellees, Cross-Appellants, v. HYTERA COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION LTD., Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 22-2370 & 22-2413 MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. and MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS MALAYSIA SDN. BHD., Plaintiffs-Appellees, Cross-Appellants, v. HYTERA COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION LTD., Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 23-CV-0700 MICHAEL PATRICK MURRAY, et al., APPELLANTS, V. MOTOROLA, INC

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBINSON, District Judge INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Intellectual Ventures I, LLC (“IV I”) and Intellectual Ventures II, LLC (“IV II”) (collectively “IV”) brought this patent infringement action against defendant Motorola Mobility, Inc. (“Motorola”) on October 6, 2011, alleging infringement 0f sjx patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,810,144 (“the 144 patent”), 6,412,953 (“the ’953 patent”),

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBINSON, District Judge I. INTRODUCTION On October 6, 2011, plaintiff Intellectual Ventures I, LLC and Intellectual Ventures II, LLC (collectively “IV”) filed suit in this district against defendant Motorola Mobility, Inc. (“Motorola”) alleging infringement of six patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,810,144 (the “144 patent”), 6,412,953 (the “953 patent”), 7,409,450 (the “4