Case: 12-1548

Document: 209

Page: 1

Filed: 08/15/2013

Appeal Nos. 2012-1548, 2012-1549 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT APPLE INC. AND NEXT SOFTWARE, INC. (formerly known as NeXT Computer Inc.), Appellants, v. MOTOROLA INC. (now known as Motorola Solutions, Inc.) AND MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC., Appellees-Cross-Appellants, Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in case no. 11-CV-8540, Judge Richard A. Posner APPELLEES-CROSS-APPELLANTS MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC AND MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO AMICI CURIAE VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. ET. AL'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN ORAL ARGUMENT Kathleen M. Sullivan Edward J. DeFranco QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 51 Madison Ave., 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010 (212) 849-7000 Charles K. Verhoeven QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 50 California St., 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 875-6600 David A. Nelson Stephen A. Swedlow QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 500 W. Madison St., Suite 2450 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 705-7400 Brian C. Cannon QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor Redwood Shores, CA 94065 (650) 801-5000 Attorneys for Motorola Mobility LLC and Motorola Solutions, Inc.

Case: 12-1548

Document: 209

Page: 2

Filed: 08/15/2013

OPPOSITION TO AMICI CURIAE'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN ORAL ARGUMENT Appellees-Cross Appellants Motorola Mobility LLC and Motorola Solutions, Inc. ("Motorola") oppose Amici Curiae Verizon Communications Inc., the American Association of Advertising Agencies, and Ford Motor Company's ("Amici") request for leave to participate in oral argument in this case. This case involves, inter alia, Apple and Motorola's appeal and cross-appeal from the district court's orders excluding the parties' respective damages experts' opinions under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert, and dismissing the parties' claims for damages and injunctive relief on summary judgment. These are record-intensive issues relating to specific patents asserted by Motorola and by Apple, and expert opinions offered by the parties. In particular, with respect to the district court's treatment of the parties' claims for damages and injunctive relief, on both sides, the issues the Court has been asked to decide relate to whether the district court failed to consider relevant evidence supporting the parties claims, and whether the district court failed to properly apply this Court's damages and injunction law to the facts of the case. These are fact-specific issues, and should not involve the sort of broad policy pronouncements that Amici seek to argue. These issues have been fully briefed by the parties and will be adequately addressed by the parties in oral argument.

02426.51761/5461935.3

Case: 12-1548

Document: 209

Page: 3

Filed: 08/15/2013

Though Amici suggest that neither party has adequately defended the district court's reasoning regarding damages and equitable relief, and only Amici stand ready to defend the entirety of the district court's reasoning, that is simply not true. Amici styled their brief as in support of "neither party," but every argument made in their brief supports Apple. Amici's brief raises three arguments: (1) injunctive relief is inappropriate for RAND-encumbered Standards-Essential Patents (Dkt. 116 at 3); (2) injunctive relief is inappropriate when the patent at issue covers a minor component in a multi-component device (id. at 11); and (3) reasonable royalty damages should not exceed the value of the patented technology over alternatives at the time of design (id. at 17). Each of Amici's arguments echoes an argument made by Apple in response to Motorola's cross-appeal of Judge Posner's rulings dismissing Motorola's claims for damages and injunctive relief. Apple Response and Reply Br. at 24-32 (arguing that Motorola's reasonable royalty damages must be limited to the incremental value of the claimed features over available alternatives), 32-36 (arguing that Motorola's patents relate to "trivial" features used by Apple's iPhone and iPad), 40-54 (arguing that Motorola's FRAND commitment bars injunctive relief). Apple has fully briefed these arguments, is represented by capable counsel, and can adequately address these issues at oral argument. It would be

fundamentally unfair to allot Amici argument time that in effect will give another
2

Case: 12-1548

Document: 209

Page: 4

Filed: 08/15/2013

voice and more time for presentation of Apple's positions than of Motorola's. Nothing about Apple's appeal of the district court's denial of Apple's own claims for damages and an injunction prevents Apple from fully responding to Motorola's cross-appeal. In particular with respect to Amici's arguments concerning the

availability of equitable relief and the impact of FRAND commitments on a patent owner's ability to obtain an injunction, Apple is well-situated to address those issues. The patents asserted by Apple in this case do not relate to industry

standardsonly Motorola's asserted patents are standards-essential and subject to FRAND commitments. Apple has implicitly acknowledged that it does not require assistance from Amici in making these arguments: Apple has not offered to share its argument time with Amici, and instead does not oppose Amici's motion so long as any time allocated to Amici is in addition to the time already allocated to the parties. Dkt. 206 at 1. This further shows why the Court should deny Amici's request. The Advisory Committee Notes to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(g) make clear that though "it is not unusual for a court to permit an amicus to argue when a party is willing to share its argument time with the amicus," in other instances an amicus should not be permitted to argue "absent extraordinary circumstances." FED. R. APP. P. 29(g), advisory committee note, amend. (1998). Amici have

Case: 12-1548

Document: 209

Page: 5

Filed: 08/15/2013

identified no extraordinary circumstances justifying the allocation of additional time for amicus argument here. Moreover, not only are both parties' counsel well equipped to address all issues raised on appeal, but this Court need not necessarily reach the policy "issues of patent remedies" that Amici claim "will have considerable effect on patent litigation for years to come." Amici Mtn., Dkt. 206 at 7. Particularly with respect to the district court's treatment of the availability of injunctions for Motorola's standards-essential patents, neither party has argued that the eBay standard does not (or should not) apply to Motorola's patents. Indeed, even though Apple

supports broad rules barring injunctions for FRAND-committed patents, Apple acknowledges that injunctions may be available under eBay in limited circumstances if the infringer refuses to pay a royalty that meets the FRAND requirement. Apple Response and Reply Br. at 50. The parties dispute whether the district court failed to consider pertinent facts and properly apply the eBay standard in dismissing Motorola's claims for equitable relief. The Court can fully address these issues and resolve this appeal without reaching the sort of broad policy pronouncements that Amici seek to support. For the foregoing reasons, Motorola respectfully submits that the Court should deny Amici Curiae Verizon Communications Inc., American Association of

Case: 12-1548

Document: 209

Page: 6

Filed: 08/15/2013

Advertising Agencies, and Ford Motor Company's Motion for Leave to Participate in Oral Argument.

Dated: August 15, 2013

Respectfully submitted, s/ David A. Nelson David A. Nelson QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART& SULLIVAN, LLP 500 W. Madison St. Suite 2450 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 705-7400 Attorney for Appellees-Cross Appellants

Case: 12-1548

Document: 209

Page: 7

Filed: 08/15/2013

CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST Counsel for Appellees-Cross-Appellants Motorola Mobility LLC and Motorola Solutions, Inc. certifies the following: 1. The full name of every party or amicus represented by me is:

Motorola Mobility LLC, formerly known as Motorola Mobility, Inc. On June 22, 2012, Appellant Motorola Mobility, Inc. was converted into a Delaware limited liability company, changing its name to Motorola Mobility LLC. Motorola Solutions, Inc., formerly known as Motorola, Inc., is incorporated under the laws of Delaware and has its principal place of business in Schaumburg, Illinois. 2. None. 3. All parent corporation and any publicly held companies that own 10 The name of the real parties in interest represented by me is:

percent or more of the stock of the party or amicus curiae represented by me are: Motorola Mobility LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Google Inc., a publicly held company. The stock of Motorola Solutions, Inc. is publicly traded. No publicly held entity owns 10 percent or more of the stock of Motorola Solutions, Inc. Motorola Solutions, Inc. has no parent corporation. 4. The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that

appeared for the party or amicus now represented by me in the trial court or agency or are expected to appear in this Court are: See the Addendum to Motorolas Certificate of Interest on the following page.
6

Case: 12-1548

Document: 209

Page: 8

Filed: 08/15/2013

ADDENDUM TO MOTOROLAS CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST Counsel for Appellees-Cross-Appellants Motorola Mobility LLC and Motorola Solutions, Inc. certifies the following: The names of all law firms and partners or associates that appeared for the parties now represented by me in the agency or that are expected to appear in this court are: QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP: Jennifer Anne Bauer Cheryl A. Berry Jeffrey Neil Boozell Meghan Bordonaro Linda J. Brewer Brian C. Cannon Thomas W. Cushing Edward J. Defranco David Eiseman David M. Elihu Charles P. Emanuel Richard W. Erwine Kevin Johnson Rebecca Frihart Kennedy David A. Nelson Raymond N. Nimrod Graham Morris Pechenik David Andrew Perlson Matthew Robson Carlos A. Rodriguez Alexander Rudis David L. Shaul Amy Lynn Signaigo Kevin A. Smith Robert William Stone Kathleen M. Sullivan
7

Case: 12-1548

Document: 209

Page: 9

Filed: 08/15/2013

Stephen A. Swedlow Matthrew A. Traupman Charles Kramer Verhoeven Amanda S. Williamson Thomas R. Watson REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN, S.C. Scott W. Hansen Lisa Nester Kass Lynn M. Stathas

SOBEL & FELLER LLP Mitchell S. Feller

Case: 12-1548

Document: 209

Page: 10

Filed: 08/15/2013

Respectfully submitted, Dated: August 15, 2013 By: s/David A. Nelson Kathleen M. Sullivan Edward J. DeFranco QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 51 Madison Ave., 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010 (212) 849-7000 Charles K. Verhoeven QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 50 California St., 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 875-6600 David A. Nelson Stephen A. Swedlow QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 500 W. Madison St., Suite 2450 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 705-7400 Brian C. Cannon QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor Redwood Shores, CA 94065 (650) 801-5000 Attorneys for Appellees-Cross Appellants

Case: 12-1548

Document: 209

Page: 11

Filed: 08/15/2013

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on August 15, 2013, I caused the Opposition of Appellees-Cross Appellants Motorola Mobility LLC and Motorola Solutions, Inc. to Amici Curiae's Motion for Leave to Participate in Oral Argument to be electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will automatically send email notification of such filing to the following counsel of record: E. Joshua Rosenkranz Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP 51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Mark S. Davies Katherine M. Kopp Rachel M. McKenzie T. Vann Pearce, Jr. Columbia Center 1152 15th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Matthew D. Powers Tensegrity Law Group, LLP Suite 360 555 Twin Dolphin Drive Redwood City, CA 94065 Counsel for Appellants-Cross Appellees Apple Inc. and NeXT Software, Inc. Patrick J. Flinn, Esq. Keith E. Broyles, Esq. Alston & Bird LLP
10

Case: 12-1548

Document: 209

Page: 12

Filed: 08/15/2013

1201 West Peachtree Street One Atlantic Center Atlanta, GA 30309 Counsel for Nokia Corporation, Nokia, Inc. Amicus Curiae Richard Alan Cederoth Nathaniel C. Love Constantine L. Trela, Jr., Esq. Sidley Austin LLP Bank One Plaza 1 South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 T. Andrew Culbert David E. Killough Microsoft Corporation 1 Microsoft Way Redmond, VA 98052 Counsel for Microsoft Corporation Amicus Curiae Brian Charles Riopelle, Esq. Kristen Marie Calleja McGuireWoods LLP One James Center 901 East Cary Street Richmond, VA 23219 Robert Michael Tyler Spotts Fain PC 411 E. Franklin Street Suite 600 Richmond, VA 23219 Counsel for Research in Motion Limited Amicus Curiae
11

Case: 12-1548

Document: 209

Page: 13

Filed: 08/15/2013

Joel Davidow Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP 507 C Street NE Washington, DC 20002 Robert J. Cynkar Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP 106-A South Columbus Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Counsel for American Antitrust Inst. Amicus Curiae Charles W. Shifley Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. Ten South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Counsel for Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago Amicus Curiae Peter McCreery Lancaster, Esq. Michael A. Lindsay Dorsey & Whitney LLP 50 South Sixth Street Suite 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Eileen M. Lach, The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. 3 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10016 Counsel for The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Amicus Curiae Debra Janece McComas David L. McCombs, Esq. Haynes & Boone, LLP
12

Case: 12-1548

Document: 209

Page: 14

Filed: 08/15/2013

Suite 700 2323 Victory Avenue Dallas, TX 75219 Marta Y. Beckwith Cisco Systems, Inc. 170 W. Tasman Drive San Jose, CA Counsel for Altera Corporation, Cisco Systems, Inc., CME Group, Inc., Garmin International, Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company, Netgear, Inc., Newegg, Inc., Rackspace Hosting, Inc., Safeway, Inc., SAS Institute, Inc., Symantec Corporation, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., XILINX, Inc., Amici Curiae Roy T. Englert, Jr. Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber LLP 1801 K Street, NW Suite 411 Washington, DC 20006 Counsel for BSA, The Software Alliance Amicus Curiae Elizabeth Else Launer Logitech Inc. Legal Department 7600 Gateway Blvd. Newark, CA 94560 Counsel for Logitech Inc.- Amicus Curiae Richard Brunell, Esq. William F. Adkinson, Jr.
13

Case: 12-1548

Document: 209

Page: 15

Filed: 08/15/2013

William Cohen Suzanne Munck af Rosenschold Federal Trade Commission Office of General Counsel 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20580 Counsel for Federal Trade Commission Amicus Curiae Richard S. Taffet, Esq. Bingham McCutchen LLP 399 Park Avenue 23rd Floor New York, NY 10022 David B. Salmons, Esq. Bingham McCutchen LLP Firm: 202-373-6000 2020 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Patrick Strawbridge, Esq., Bingham McCutchen LLP Firm: 617-951-8000 One Federal Street Boston, MA 02110 Counsel for Qualcomm Inc. Amicus Curiae Brian Robert Matsui Natalie Ram Morrison & Foerster LLP Suite 6000 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 Counsel for Law Professors, Thomas F. Cotter, Shubha Ghosh, A. Christal
14

Case: 12-1548

Document: 209

Page: 16

Filed: 08/15/2013

Sheppard, Katherine J. Strandburg Amici Curiae Tina Michele Chappell Intel Corporation 4500 S. Dobson. Road Chandler AZ 85248 Thomas G. Hungar Matthew D. McGill Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036-5306 Counsel for Intel Corporation Amicus Curiae

s/ David A. Nelson

15