decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
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.


To read comments to this article, go here
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.


  View Printable Version


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 )