decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Judge Robart Reopens MS v. Motorola Nov. Trial for New Evidence From Motorola ~pj
Friday, February 15 2013 @ 06:44 AM EST

The November trial in Microsoft v. Motorola has been reopened, so Motorola can introduce new evidence. Apparently, Motorola and Microsoft were on the phone with the judge presiding in the Seattle litigation, Judge James L. Robart, in connection with a new Motorola request to reopen the trial so it can submit additional evidence, and he has just granted [PDF] Motorola's request, despite Microsoft's opposition. This is unusual, to say the least.

Here's the docket entry:

02/14/2013 - 653 - MINUTE ORDER - The court Grants Motorola's request to reopen the record to submit additional evidence, by Judge James L. Robart. (MD) (Entered: 02/14/2013)

The order from the Court Clerk reads like this:
On February 12, 2013, the parties contacted the court regarding Motorola's request to reopen the record of the November 13-19, 2012 trial to submit additional evidence. It is the court's understanding that although Microsoft opposes reopening the trial record, in the event Motorola is permitted to submit additional evidence, Microsoft would like to submit additional evidence of its own.

Because the court desires to issue its ruling with the most complete record possible, the court GRANTS Motorola's request to reopen the record to submit additional evidence. Microsoft may also submit contextual evidence in response to Motorola's newly submitted evidence. The submissions of both parties shall be limited to the evidence discussed during the parties' phone call with the court on February 12, 2013. Along with any additional evidence, both parties may submit two-page letter briefs providing the court with an explanation of the submitted evidence. Any submissions shall be filed no later than February 22, 2013.

There's no indication as to precisely what the additional evidence is about, but we'll know when it all gets filed by next Friday.

This is about FRAND patents, with Microsoft asking the judge to set a royalty rate it owes to Motorola. The trial briefs are here, if you'd like to review the issues. Our coverage of the November trial, a bench trial, is here:

That was phase one of the litigation. And that's what is now reopened. Transcripts of the trial will be made public on March 19, but until then our coverage is the best source of details on what new evidence might be about. On Day 1 and then Day 4, the parties presented opening statements.

Here's Microsoft's, from our reporter's coverage of Day 1:

Microsoft's Opening Statement:

Royalty should be proportionate to use of the patent in the relevant standards, resulting in reasonable RAND rates. Motorola is asking for unjustifiable amounts, via patent stacking. This may affect future RAND settlements. Discussed how patent pools are formed, specifics on the MPEG LA group. Purpose is to protect patents while making payments low enough to attract licensees. Motorola abruptly left the MPEG LA discussions. During those discussions, Motorola never said their patents deserved higher royalties. Professor Murphy will testify to the impact of the patent pools, supporting RAND. Matt Lind to provide data details indicating that Motorola's royalty should be pennies, not dollars. Gary Sullivan will testify that Motorola's contribution was only interlaced video, which was added later (and is old, unimportant technology); alternate technical solutions were available. Motorola patents are tangential to XBox, and are rarely called on in real-world use. Interlaced video support is contained in $3 to $4 chips from another company.

And here's Motorola's, from Day 4:
Motorola opening statement:

Microsoft wants low pool rates based on multilateral ex ante negotiations. This does not reflect real-world negotiations. This model does not consider strength of Motorola's contributions. Other important patent holders rejected the MPEG LA pool. Motorola seeks to simulate a real-world negotiation that would have happened. Motorola will compare the strength of their patents vs. Microsoft patents. Multiple witnesses from multiple companies will attest to how bilateral negotiations would work.


Judge Robart Reopens MS v. Motorola Nov. Trial for New Evidence From Motorola ~pj | 28 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here please, if needed
Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, February 15 2013 @ 07:39 AM EST
Please indicate the nature of the correction in the title of your post to make
it easier for PJ.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic here please
Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, February 15 2013 @ 07:42 AM EST
Please, no on topic (with respect to the main article) discussion in this thread, or you can expect something extremely nasty to happen (only kidding).

This is the place for stuff, however odd, which is likely to interest Groklaw readers, but has nothing to do with the main subject. Please do comply with the posting guidelines, and try to make clickable links where possible.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspick discussions here please
Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, February 15 2013 @ 07:44 AM EST
This is the place to discuss Groklaw Newspick items. Please try to make links to
the relevant articles where possible, so that they can still be accessed after
the item has disappeared off the botton of the home page.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes cometh here
Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, February 15 2013 @ 07:46 AM EST
If you are transcribing the "Comes" depositions, which are more than
somewhat embarassing to M$, you will already know what to do with this space.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Trolls, shills, astroturfers, and all politics and foul language go here
Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, February 15 2013 @ 07:49 AM EST
So that PJ can blow you all away by deleting one thread. Keeps things tidy.

Better still, just go away, or find another blog, which does not care to keep up the quality of its content.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Robart Reopens MS v. Motorola Nov. Trial for New Evidence From Motorola ~pj
Authored by: kuroshima on Friday, February 15 2013 @ 08:02 AM EST
Wait a second, a ruling that doesn't favor Microsoft? Either
I'm dreaming, or it's a ploy, to show the appeals court that
this trial was not one sided...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Robart Reopens MS v. Motorola Nov. Trial for New Evidence From Motorola ~pj
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, February 15 2013 @ 12:07 PM EST
I can't wait to see what Moto Found. For the judge to do this he must think it's
it's potentially important enough to risk an remand if he doesn't. That takes a

Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )