MicrosoftVsMotorola_11.12.11

8/3/2019 MicrosoftVsMotorola_11.12.11

1/26

Microsoftversus

Motorola

The patentbattlefield

as of

11 Dec 11

The next 17pages show

how thisconflict hasescalated.Move bymove.

version 11.12.11.100

2010, 2011 by Florian Muellerhttp://fosspatents.blogspot.com

Twitter: @FOSSpatents

Motorola

Microsoft

ITCUS

In

ternational

TradeCommission

746

762

133

352

566

054

517

910

376

Southe

rnDistrict

ofF

lorida

WD

WI

WesternDistrict

ofW

isconsin

SD

FL

23+R

7

899

001

333

176

544

370

896

374

375

376

516

712

571

931

596

094

839

WD

WA

WesternDistrict

ofW

ashington

7

56

7 3

6

RAND

5

358

580

6

3

6

130

460

536

853

214

904

901

7

276

642

780

718

664

666

582

583

220

2

5 2

15+R

15

2

NorthernDistrict

ofC

alifornia

ND

CA

LG

MA

Lan

dgericht

Ma

nnheim

LG

M1

Landgericht

Mnchen(Munich)I

EP384

EP667

EP654

EP521

4

EP021

EP891

EP328

3

3

4

RAND
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/http://twitter.com/FOSSpatentshttp://twitter.com/FOSSpatentshttp://fosspatents.blogspot.com/


2/26



Motorola

Microsoft

ITCUS

In

ternational

TradeCommission

746

762

133

352

566

054

517

910

376

9 9

WD

WA

WesternDistrict

ofW

ashington

9

Move #1

01 Oct 10

Microsoftfiles two

complaints

againstMotorola(with afederal

court andthe ITC)

Move #1:Microsoft files two complaints

against Motorola: one in theWestern District of Washington,another with the ITC. Both relate

to the same 9 patents.


3/26



Motorola

Microsoft

ITCUS

In

ternational

TradeCommission

746

762

133

352

566

054

517

910

376

9+R

9

WD

WA

West

ernDistrict

ofW

ashington

9

RAND

Move #2

09 Nov 10

Microsoftfiles

another

complaintagainst

Motorola,over

RANDlicensing

obligations--

motion to

stay firstsuit

Move #2, step 1/2:In a second complaint against Motorolain the Western District of Washington,

Microsoft alleges Motorola's failure to complywith RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory)

licensing commitments Motorola made tocertain standard-setting organizations

(IEEE-SA and ITU) and their members.

Move #2, step 2/2:

Since Microsoft asserted the same patentsin its original infringement suit in Washington

as in its ITC complaint, the parties jointlymove to stay the original infringement suitfor the duration of the ITC investigation.


4/26



Motorola

Microsoft

ITCUS

In

ternational

TradeCommission

746

762

133

352

566

054

517

910

376

Southe

rnDistrict

ofFlorida

WD

WI

WesternDistrict

ofW

isconsin

SD

FL

9+R

9

899

001

333

176

544

370

374

375

376

516

712

571

931

596

094

839

WD

WA

WesternDistrict

ofW

ashington

9

9

7 3 6

RAND

7

9

Move #3

10 Nov 10

Motorolafilesthree

complaintsagainst

Microsoftin twofederalcourts

Move #3:Motorola files three complaints

against Microsoft:one over 7 patents in the

Southern District of Florida,and two suits in the

Western District of Wisconsin(one over 3 patents, another

over 6 patents).


5/26



Motorola

Microsoft

ITCUS

In

ternational

TradeCommission

746

762

133

352

566

054

517

910

376

Southe

rnDistrict

ofFlorida

WD

WI

WesternDistrict

ofW

isconsin

SD

FL

9+R

9

899

001

333

176

544

370

896

374

375

376

516

712

571

931

596

094

839

WD

WA

WesternDistrict

ofW

ashington

9

5910

7 3

6 7

5

910

RAND

7

Move #4

22 Nov 10

MotorolafilesITC

complaint,amends

oneWisconsincomplaint

Move #4:Motorola files an ITC complaintagainst Microsoft over 5 patents

that the Xbox 360 allegedlyinfringes: 4 of those patents

were previously asserted

in one of the two suits in theWestern District of Wisconsin,

the 5th one is new and it'ssimultaneously added to thatWisconsin suit by way of an

amended complaint.At this point, only the '516 and '931patents are part of that Wisconsinsuit but notof the ITC complaint.

Nothing changedabout the '516

and '931 patentsat this stage.The new lines

just separate themfrom those patentsthat are asserted inthe ITC complaint

as well.


6/26



Motorola

Microsoft

ITCUS

In

ternational

TradeCommission

746

762

133

352

566

054

517

910

376

Southe

rnDistrict

ofFlorida

WD

WI

WesternDistrict

ofW

isconsin

SD

FL

9+R

9

899

001

333

176

544

370

896

374

375

376

516

712

571

931

596

094

839

WD

WA

WesternDistrict

ofW

ashington

9

51012

7 3

7 6

5

358

580

109

3

RAND

7

Move #5

23 Dec 10

Motorolafiles

a third

Wisconsincomplaint

Move #5:Motorola files a third Wisconsin

complaint, asserting three patentsagainst Kinect and Xbox.

Those three patents includetwo new ones and the '931 patent

previously asserted in anotherWisconsin suit. Motorola says it will"seek dismissal without prejudice

relating to" the '931 patent in that othersuit. This chart reflects Motorola's

announcement (on 18 January 2011,Motorola indeed acted accordingly).On that basis, only 1 of the 6 patentsremaining in that other suit (the '516

patent) is not simultaneouslypart of Motorola's ITC complaint.


7/26



Motorola

Microsoft

ITCUS

In

ternational

TradeCommission

746

762

133

352

566

054

517

910

376

Southe

rnDistrict

ofFlorida

WD

WI

WesternDistrict

ofW

isconsin

SD

FL

9+R

9

899

001

333

176

544

370

896

374

375

376

516

712

571

931

596

094

839

WD

WA

WesternDistrict

ofW

ashington

9

512

7 3

6

5

358

580

9

3

130

460

536

853

214

904

901

7

RAND

7

7

Move #6

23 Dec 10

Microsoftmakes

counter-

claims inSouthernFlorida,

asserting7 patents

Move #6:On the same day on which Motorola

filed its third Wisconsin suit,

Microsoft makes counterclaimsin the Southern Florida case,asserting 7 patents:

5 of them against Motorola'sAndroid smartphones, and 2

against Motorola set-top boxeswith DVR functionality.


8/26



Motorola

Microsoft

ITCUS

In

ternational

Trade

Commission

746

762

133

352

566

054

517

910

376

SouthernDistrict

ofFlorida

WD

WI

WesternDistrict

ofW

isconsin

SD

FL

9+R

9

899

001

333

176

544

370

896

374

375

376

516

712

571

931

596

094

839

WD

WA

WesternDistrict

ofW

ashington

9

512

7 3

6

5

358

580

9

3

130

460

536

853

214

904

901

7

RAND

7

7

Move #7

17-18Jan 11

The partiesstipulate to

stay the2nd

Wisconsincase,

Motoroladrops

one patentfrom it

Move #7, part 1/2:The parties stipulate

to stay the 2nd

Wisconsin casefor the duration

of ITC investigationno. 337-TA-752.

On 21 January 2011,the judge ordersto stay that case.

Move #7, part 1/2:

Motorola files a secondamended complaint,drops (as previously

announced) the 931 patentit had meanwhile assertedin the 3rd Wisconsin case.


9/26



Motorola

Microsoft

ITCUSIn

ternational

Trade

Commission

746

762

133

352

566

054

517

910

376

SouthernDistrict

ofFlorida

WD

WI

WesternDistrict

ofW

isconsin

SD

FL

9+R

9

899

001

333

176

544

370

896

374

375

376

516

712

571

931

596

094

839

WD

WA

WesternDistrict

ofW

ashington

9

512

7 3

6

5

358

580

9

3

130

460

536

853

214

904

901

7

276

642

718

664

666

5

RAND

7

57

Move #8

19 Jan 11

Microsoftcounter-claims in

the 3rdWisconsin

suit,asserts

5 patents

Move #8:Microsoft counterclaims

in the 3rd Wisconsin suit,asserts five patents.


10/26


11/26



Motorola

Microsoft

ITCUSI

nternational

Trade

Commission

746

762

133

352

566

054

517

910

376

SouthernDistrict

ofFlorida

WD

WI

WesternDistrict

ofW

isconsin

SD

FL

9+R

9

899

001

333

176

544

370

896

374

375

376

516

712

571

931

596

094

839

WD

WA

WesternDistrict

ofW

ashington

9

51214

7 3

6

5

358

580

9

3

5

130

460

536

853

214

904

901

7

276

642

780

718

664

666

582

583

220

2

5 2

RAND

7

77

75

Move #10

14 Feb 11

Motorolaamendsits third

Wisconsinsuit, adds

twopatents

Move #10:Motorola

amends its 3rdWisconsin complaint,

adds two patents.


12/26



Motorola

Microsoft

ITCUSI

nternational

Trade

Commission

746

762

133

352

566

054

517

910

376

SouthernDistrict

ofFlorida

WD

WI

WesternDistrict

ofW

isconsin

SD

FL

911+R

9

899

001

333

176

544

370

896

374

375

376

516

712

571

931

596

094

839

WD

WA

WesternDistrict

ofW

ashington

9

51411

7 3

6

5

358

580

9 6

3

5

130

460

536

853

214

904

901

7

276

642

780

718

664

666

582

583

220

2

5 2

RAND

37

75

7

Move #11

18-28Feb 11

The firstWisconsin

suit istransferred

toWashing-

ton

Move #11. part 1/2:On 18 February 2011,

the Wisconsin court agreeswith Microsoft and ordersthe transfer of the first ofthe three Wisconsin suits

(case no. 3:10-cv-00699)to Washington.

Move #11. part 2/2:Microsoft's counterclaims

in that case are alsotransferred.

75


13/26



Motorola

Microsoft

ITCUSI

nternational

Trade

Commission

746

762

133

352

566

054

517

910

376

SouthernDistrict

of

Florida

WD

WI

WesternDistrict

ofW

isconsin

SD

FL

1116+R

9

899

001

333

176

544

370

896

374

375

376

516

712

571

931

596

094

839

WD

WA

WesternDistrict

ofW

ashington

9

5116

7 3

6

5

358

580

6

3

5

130

460

536

853

214

904

901

7

276

642

780

718

664

666

582

583

220

2

5 2

8

RAND

387

Move #12

01-08Apr 11

AnotherWisconsin

suit istransferred

toWashing-

ton Move #12:The Wisconsin-based

court grants Microsoft'smotion for transfer of

another case (the third onefiled there by Motorola)

to Washington.At this stage, two of the

three Wisconsin suitshave been transferred,

and the third one isstayed for the duration ofan ITC investigation and

may subsequently betransferred as well.

57


14/26



Motorola

Microsoft

ITCUSI

nternational

Trade

Commission

746

762

133

352

566

054

517

910

376

SouthernDistrict

of

Florida

WD

WI

Wes

ternDistrict

ofWisconsin

SD

FL

16+R

9

899

001

333

176

544

370

896

374

375

376

516

712

571

931

596

094

839

WD

WA

Wes

ternDistrict

ofW

ashington

9

56

7 3

6

5

358

580

6

3

130

460

536

853

214

904

901

7

276

642

780

718

664

666

582

583

220

2

5 2

8

North

ernDistrict

ofCalifornia

ND

CA

RAND

RAND

R

Move #13

24 Jun 11

MotorolabringsRAND-

relatedcounter-claimsagainst

Microsoftat the ITCand movesthem to theNorthern

District ofCalifornia

8

Move #13:Motorola brings RAND-related counterclaims

concerning Microsoft's FAT

patents at the ITC.ITC counterclaims mustbe severed and filed in a

federal court.Motorola chooses the

Northern District ofCalifornia because it

claims an entitlement toa RAND license

under an agreementthat requires litigation

in that district.

7

5

7


15/26


16/26



Motorola

Microsoft

ITCUSI

nternational

Trade

Commission

746

762

133

352

566

054

517

910

376

SouthernDistrict

of

Florida

WD

WI

Wes

ternDistrict

ofWisconsin

SD

FL

1623+R

7

899

001

333

176

544

370

896

374

375

376

516

712

571

931

596

094

839

WD

WA

Wes

ternDistrict

ofW

ashington

7

56

7 3

6

5

358

580

6

3

6

130

460

536

853

214

904

901

7

276

642

780

718

664

666

582

583

220

2

5 2

8 15

2

North

ernDistrict

ofCalifornia

ND

CA

RAND

RAND

R

Move #15

17 Aug 11

TheSouthernFlorida

lawsuit istransferred

toWashing-

ton,thwartingMotorola's

tacticalplans

Move #15:The court in Southern

Florida grants Microsoft'smotion to transfer the

case to WesternWashington. This

venue transfer decisiongives Microsoft not only

the home court advantagebut, far more importantly,

thwarts Motorola'splan to have at leastone federal decision

that might work out in itsfavor before the ITC

takes its final decisionon Microsoft's ITC

complaint.

815


17/26

Move #16

13 Oct 11

A filing byMotorola

in Northern

Calif.reveals the

parties'Germanlawsuitsagainst

each other



Motorola

Microsoft

ITCUSI

nternational

Trade

Commission

746

762

133

352

566

054

517

910

376

SouthernDistrict

of

Florida

WD

WI

Wes

ternDistrict

ofWisconsin

SD

FL

23+R

7

899

001

333

176

544

370

896

374

375

376

516

712

571

931

596

094

839

WD

WA

Wes

ternDistrict

ofW

ashington

7

56

7 3

6

5

358

580

6

3

130

460

536

853

214

904

901

7

276

642

780

718

664

666

582

583

220

2

5 2

15

15

2

North

ernDistrict

ofCalifornia

ND

CA

LG

MA

La

ndgericht

M

annheim

LG

M1

La

ndgericht

Mnch

en(Munich)I

EP384

EP667

EP654

EP521

4

EP021

EP891

EP328

3

3

4

RAND

Move #16:A pleading by Motorola in the

RAND-related litigation inNorthern California revealsa variety of German actions

involving the two parties.Motorola is suing Microsoft

over four patents in Mannheim,Microsoft is suing Motorola

over three patents in Munich.

RAND

R

5


18/26

Move #17

21 Nov 11

Motorola'sRAND

counter-

claims aretransferred

fromNorthernCalif. toWesternWash.



Motorola

Microsoft

IT

CUSInternational

Trade

Commission

746

762

133

352

566

054

517

910

376

South

ernDistrict

of

Florida

WD

WI

Wes

ternDistrict

ofWisconsin

SD

FL

23+R

7

899

001

333

176

544

370

896

374

375

376

516

712

571

931

596

094

839

WD

WA

Wes

ternDistrict

ofW

ashington

7

56

7 3

6

5

358

580

6

3

130

460

536

853

214

904

901

7

276

642

780

718

664

666

582

583

220

2

5 2

15+R

15

2

North

ernDistrict

ofCalifornia

ND

CA

LG

MA

La

ndgericht

M

annheim

LG

M1

La

ndgericht

Mnch

en(Munich)I

EP384

EP667

EP654

EP521

4

EP021

EP891

EP328

3

3

4

RAND

Move #17:Motorola's RAND-related

counterclaims (concerningMicrosoft's FAT patents)

are transferred from the NorthernDistrict of California to the

Western District of Washington.

RAND

5


19/26

Referencematerial

as per11 Dec 11

page R-1

United States International Trade CommissionInvestigation no. 337-TA-744 on "certain mobile devices, associated software, and components thereof"-- complaint filed on 01 October 2010

Microsoft Corporation (of Redmond, WA 98052)vs. Motorola, Inc. (of Schaumburg, IL 60196)

Microsoft simultaneously filed a suit against Motorola over the same matter in the Western District of Washington (case 2:10-cv-01577).FOSS Patents reacted to this ITC complaint and the equivalent suit on the same day and two days laterdiscussed the patents-in-suit.

Allegedly infringing productsMicrosoft's complaint relates to Motorola's Android smartphones and states specifically accused products only as examples. Namedaccused products include the following devices: Devour, Droid 2, Droid X, i1, Cliq, Cliq XT, Charm, and Back Flip. Microsoft also accuses"the associated software loaded onto these phones by Motorola or its suppliers" (item 16 of the complaint).

Asserted patents (in order of appearance in documents filed with the ITC)

asserted by Microsoft in original (as well as first amended) complaint5,579,517 ("517") Common name space for long and short file names

dropped from ITC complaint on August 11, 20115,758,352 ("352") Common name space for long and short file names6,621,746 ("746") Monitoring entropic conditions of a flash memory device as an indicator for invoking erasure operations

dropped from ITC complaint on August 11, 20116,826,762 ("762") Radio interface layer in a cell phone with a set of APIs having a hardware-independent proxy layer

and a hardware-specific driver layer6,909,910 ("910") Method and system for managing changes to a contact database7,644,376 ("376") Flexible architecture for notifying applications of state changes5,664,133 ("133") Context sensitive menu system/menu behavior6,578,054 ("054") Method and system for supporting off-line mode of operation and synchronization

using resource state information6,370,566 ("566") Generating meeting requests and group scheduling from a mobile device

United States District Court for the Western District of WashingtonCase no. 2:10-cv-01577 -- complaint filed on 01 October 2010

Microsoft Corporation (of Redmond, WA 98052)vs. Motorola, Inc. (of Schaumburg, IL 60196)

This suit relates to the same matter as the ITC complaint Microsoft filed on the same day. After the ITC instituted an investigation basedon that complaint, the parties filed a joint stipulation on 09 November 2010 to stay the case for the duration of the ITC investigation.

FOSS Patents reacted to this suit and the equivalent ITC complaint on the same day and two days laterdiscussed the patents-in-suit.


http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/10/first-reaction-to-microsoft-patent.htmlhttp://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/10/android-caught-in-crossfire-of-patents.htmlhttp://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/10/first-reaction-to-microsoft-patent.htmlhttp://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/10/android-caught-in-crossfire-of-patents.htmlhttp://fosspatents.blogspot.com/http://twitter.com/FOSSpatentshttp://twitter.com/FOSSpatentshttp://fosspatents.blogspot.com/http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/10/android-caught-in-crossfire-of-patents.htmlhttp://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/10/first-reaction-to-microsoft-patent.htmlhttp://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/10/android-caught-in-crossfire-of-patents.htmlhttp://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/10/first-reaction-to-microsoft-patent.html


20/26

United States District Court for the Western District of WashingtonCase no. 2:10-cv-01823 -- complaint filed on 09 November 2010

Microsoft Corporation (of Redmond, WA 98052)vs. Motorola, Inc. (of Schaumburg, IL 60196) and Motorola Mobility, Inc. (of Libertyville, IL 60048)

This is not an infringement suit. Instead, Microsoft brought this suit against the two Motorola entities for Motorola's alleged "breach of itscommitments to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standards Association ('IEEE-SA'), International Telecommuni-cations Union ('ITU'), and their members and affiliates", which include Microsoft. The complaint alleges that Motorola demanded

"excessive and discriminatory royalties from Microsoft", disregarding its alleged obligations for reasonable and non-discriminatory(RAND) licensing. Microsoft asks the court for related judicial declarations and for "a judicial accounting of what constitutes a royalty ratein allr espects consistent with Motorola's promises for WLAN patents identified as 'essential' by Motorola and for H.264 [video codec]patents identified by Motorola", and ultimately, "a judicial determination of and compensation for Motorola's breach."

FOSS Patents commented on this RAND enforcement suit on the following day.

United States District Court for the Southern District of FloridaCase no. 1:10-cv-24063 -- complaint filed on 10 November 2010 --transfer to Western District of Washington ordered on 17 August 2011

Motorola Mobility, Inc. (of Libertyville, IL 60048)vs. Microsoft Corporation (of Redmond, WA 98052)

On the same day, Motorola also filed two complaints against Microsoft with the US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin(cases 3:10-cv-00699 and 3:10-cv-00700). FOSS Patents commented on Motorola's expected countersuits on the following day.

On 17 August 2011, the Florida-based court granted Microsoft's motion to transfer the case to Western Washington.

Allegedly infringing productsFor each of the patents, Motorola broadly accuses "operating systems, office software, server software, and/or communications andmessaging software", but the specifically accused products then tend to be more limited in scope. A matrix on the next page shows therelationship between the patents-in-suit and the accused products.

Asserted patents (in order of appearance in documents filed with the court)

asserted by Motorola in original complaint5,502,839 ("839") Object-oriented software architecture supporting input/output device independence5,764,899 ("899") Method and apparatus for communicating an optimized reply5,784,001 ("001") Method and apparatus for presenting graphic messages in a data communication receiver6,272,333 ("333") Method and apparatus in a wireless communication system for controlling a delivery of data6,408,176 ("176") Method and system for initiating a communication in a communication system6,757,544 ("544") System and method for determining a location relevant to a communication device and/or its associated user6,983,370 ("370") System for providing continuity between messaging clients and method therefor

Referencematerial

as per11 Dec 11

page R-2


http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/11/microsoft-sues-motorola-again-this-time.htmlhttp://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/11/no-surprise-here-motorola-countersues.htmlhttp://fosspatents.blogspot.com/http://twitter.com/FOSSpatentshttp://twitter.com/FOSSpatentshttp://fosspatents.blogspot.com/http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/11/no-surprise-here-motorola-countersues.htmlhttp://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/11/microsoft-sues-motorola-again-this-time.html


21/26

Referencematerial

as per11 Dec 11

page R-3

United States District Court for the Southern District of FloridaCase no. 1:10-cv-24063 -- complaint filed on 10 November 2010 -- continued from previous pagetransfer to Western District of Washington ordered on 17 August 2011

'839

'899

'001

'333

'176

'544

Windows

Vista

Windows

7

Windows

Mobile

6.5

Windows

Phone

7

Exchange

Serve

r2003

Exchange

Serve

r2007

Exchange

Serve

r2010

withUnifi

edMe

ssagin

g

BingMap

s

LiveMes

senger

2011

Windows

LiveH

otmail

'370

Microsoft counterclaims (23 December 2010 answer to original complaint)

Allegedly infringing productsThe first five patents are claimed to read on "Android smartphones including, e.g., the Motorola Droid X and Motorola Droid 2."The last two patents are claimed to read on "set-top boxes that contain digital video recorder (DVR) functionality". Specific DVRexamples are (for the '904 patent) the Motorola DCH6416 and (for the '901 patent) the Motorola BMC9012.

Asserted patents (in order of appearance in the court filing)

asserted by Microsoft in counterclaims (part of answer to original complaint, dated 23 December 2010)

6,791,536 ("536") Simulating gestures of a pointing device using a stylus and providing feedback thereto6,897,853 ("853") Highlevel active pen matrix7,024,214 ("214") Synchronizing over a number of synchronization mechanisms using flexible rules7,493,130 ("130") Synchronizing over a number of synchronization mechanisms using flexible rules7,383,460 ("460") Method and system for configuring a timer6,897,904 ("904") Method and system for selecting among multiple tuners6,785,901 ("901") Altering locks on programming content




22/26

Referencematerial

as per11 Dec 11

page R-4

United States District Court for the Western District of WisconsinCase no. 3:10-cv-00699 -- complaint filed on 10 November 2010 --transferred in February 2011 to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington --Case no. 2:11-cv-00343

Motorola Mobility, Inc. (of Libertyville, IL 60048) and General Instrument Corporation (of Horsham, PE 19044)vs. Microsoft Corporation (of Redmond, WA 98052)

On the same day, Motorola also filed another complaint against Microsoft with the US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin(case 3:10-cv-00700) and one with the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (case 1:10-cv-24063). FOSS Patentscommented on Motorola's expected countersuits on the following day.

On 18 February 2011, the Wisconsin court ordered the transfer of this case to Washington, where it was entered into the court filingsystem on 28 February 2011.

Allegedly infringing productsFor each of its patents, Motorola accuses "the Windows 7 operating systems for personal computers".In its counterclaims, Microsoft accuses "products such as Android smartphones including, e.g., at least one or more of the following: [...]"The specifically named products include the Droid X and Droid 2 for both patents; the Devour and Charm for the '780 patent; and theCliq XT and i1 for the '582 patent.


asserted by Motorola in original complaint7,310,374 ("374") Macroblock level adaptive frame/field coding for digital video content7,310,375 ("375") Macroblock level adaptive frame/field coding for digital video content7,310,376 ("376") Macroblock level adaptive frame/field coding for digital video content

asserted by Microsoft on 25 January 2011 as part of counterclaims in answer to amended complaint6,339,780 ("780") Loading status in a hypermedia browser having a limited available display area7,411,582 ("582") Soft input panel system and method

2010 by Florian Muellerhttp://fosspatents.blogspot.com

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/11/no-surprise-here-motorola-countersues.htmlhttp://fosspatents.blogspot.com/http://twitter.com/FOSSpatentshttp://twitter.com/FOSSpatentshttp://fosspatents.blogspot.com/http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/11/no-surprise-here-motorola-countersues.html


23/26

Referencematerial

as per11 Dec 11

page R-5

United States District Court for the Western District of WisconsinCase no. 3:10-cv-00700 -- complaint filed on 10 November 2010


On the same day, Motorola also filed another complaint against Microsoft with the US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin(case 3:10-cv-00699) and one with the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (case 1:10-cv-24063).FOSS Patents commented on Motorola's expected countersuits on the following day.

On 17 January 2011, the parties filed a stipulation to stay the case for the duration of the ITC investigation no. 337-TA-752. The partiesagreed that Motorola would file a 2nd amended complaint dropping one patent. On 21 January 2011, the court ordered accordingly.

Allegedly infringing productsAll of the products specifically accused by Motorola in this suit are from the Xbox product line.The '596, '094 and '931 patents allegedly read on "various models of the Xbox 360, including without limitation the Xbox 360Pro/Premium, Xbox 360 Elite, Xbox 360 Arcade, and Xbox 360 S." The '712 and '516 patents allegedly read on "various models of theXbox 360, including without limitation: (i) the Xbox 360 S; and (ii) in conjunction with the Xbox 360 Wireless Networking Adapter orthe Xbox 360 Wireless N Networking Adapter, the Xbox 360 Core, Xbox 360 Pro/Premium, Xbox 360 Elite, and Xbox 360 Arcade".The '571 patent allegedly reads on the same products as the '712 and '516 patents, however, with the difference that the use of certainmodels in connection with the Xbox 360 Wireless Networking Adapter is not accused (only with the Wireless N Networking Adapter).The '896 patent allegedly reads on "various models of the Xbox 360 and associated wireless accessories, including without limitation the

Xbox 360 Pro/Premium, Xbox 360 Elite, Xbox 360 Arcade, and Xbox 360 S."


asserted by Motorola in original complaint6,980,596 ("596") * Macroblock level adaptive frame/field coding for digital video content7,162,094 ("094") * Frequency coefficient scanning paths for coding digital video content5,319,712 ("712") * Method and apparatus for providing cryptographic protection of a data stream in a communication system5,357,571 ("571") * Method for point-to-point communications within secure communication systems6,686,931 ("931") Graphical password methodology for a microprocessor device accepting non-alphanumeric user input

On 23 December 2010, Motorola asserted this patent in a different complaint filed with the same court(case 3:10-cv-00826) and announced that it would seek dismissal without prejudice of the related claims here.On 18 January 2011, Motorola's 2nd amended complaint dropped this patent.

5,311,516 ("516") Paging system using message fragmentation to redistribute traffic

additionally asserted by Motorola in 1st amended complaint6,069,896 ("896") * Capability addressable network and method therefor

In the list above, an asterisk (*) denotes patents also asserted by Motorola in an ITC complaint (investigation no. 337-TA-752).By the time this case was stayed for the duration of the ITC proceeding, the '516 patent was the only patent asserted in this case withoutbeing simultaneously asserted before the ITC, and Motorola agreed to stay the related infringement claim nevertheless.


http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/11/no-surprise-here-motorola-countersues.htmlhttp://fosspatents.blogspot.com/http://twitter.com/FOSSpatentshttp://twitter.com/FOSSpatentshttp://fosspatents.blogspot.com/http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/11/no-surprise-here-motorola-countersues.html


24/26

Referencematerial

as per11 Dec 11

page R-6

United States International Trade CommissionInvestigation no. 337-TA-752 on "certain gaming and entertainment consoles, related software, andcomponents thereof" -- complaint filed on 22 November 2010


FOSS Patents reacted to this ITC complaint on the following day and latermentioned the ITC's decision to launch an investigation.

Allegedly infringing productsIn terms of examples of specifically accused products, the complaint names "the 250 GB Xbox 360 S and the 4 GB Xbox 360 S."

Asserted patents (in order of appearance in documents filed with the ITC)

asserted by Motorola in original complaint6,980,596 ("596") Macroblock level adaptive frame/field coding for digital video content7,162,094 ("094") Frequency coefficient scanning paths for coding digital video content5,319,712 ("712") Method and apparatus for providing cryptographic protection of a data stream in a communication system5,357,571 ("571") Method for point-to-point communications within secure communication systems6,069,896 ("896") Capability addressable network and method therefor

The asserted patents were also asserted by Motorola in a complaint in the Western District of Wisconsin (case no. 3:10-cv-00700).

United States District Court for the Western District of WisconsinCase no. 3:10-cv-00826 -- complaint filed on 23 December 2010 --transferred in April 2011 to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington --Case no. 2:11-cv-00595

Motorola Mobility, Inc. (of Libertyville, IL 60048)vs. Microsoft Corporation (of Redmond, WA 98052)

On April 1, the Wisconsin court ordered the transfer to Washington, where it was entered on April 8.

Allegedly infringing products

For the '580, '358 and '220 patents, Motorola accuses "the Kinect Gaming System" as well as "the individual components of the KinectGaming System, including without limitation the Kinect sensor device, the Xbox 360 S, Xbox 360 Core, Xbox 360 Pro/Premium, Xbox360 Elite, Xbox 360 Arcade." For the '931 and '583 patents, Motorola accuses "various models of the Xbox 360, including withoutlimitation the Xbox 360 Core, Xbox 360 Pro/Premium, Xbox 360 Elite, Xbox 360 Arcade, and Xbox 360 S."

For all five patents asserted in its counterclaims, Microsoft accuses slightly different lists of Android-based smartphones. For the '642patent, Microsoft additionally accuses "Motorola network router products, including at least the Motorola Mesh W ide Area Network AP7181 and the Motorola CPEi150." A matrix below the list of asserted patents shows the relationship between Microsoft's patents-in-suitand the accused products.


http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/11/motorolas-itc-complaint-against.htmlhttp://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/12/overview-of-smartphone-related-itc.htmlhttp://fosspatents.blogspot.com/http://twitter.com/FOSSpatentshttp://twitter.com/FOSSpatentshttp://fosspatents.blogspot.com/http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/12/overview-of-smartphone-related-itc.htmlhttp://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/11/motorolas-itc-complaint-against.html


25/26

Referencematerial

as per11 Dec 11

page R-7

United States District Court for the Western District of WisconsinCase no. 3:10-cv-00826 -- complaint filed on 23 December 2010 --transferred in April 2011 to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington --Case no. 2:11-cv-00595 -- continued from previous page

Asserted patents (each list in order of appearance in documents filed with the court)

asserted by Motorola in original complaint6,992,580 ("580") Portable communication device and corresponding method of operation7,106,358 ("358") Method, system and apparatus for telepresence communications6,686,931 ("931") Graphical password methodology for a microprocessor device accepting non-alphanumeric user input

On 09 December 2010, Motorola already asserted this patent in a different complaint filed with the same court(case 3:10-cv-00700) and announced that it would seek dismissal without prejudice of the related claims there.On 18 January 2011, Motorola filed a second amended complaint in Wisconsin to drop the patent there.

additionally asserted by Motorola in 1st amended complaint (14 February 2011)7,088,220 ("220") Method and apparatus using biometric sensors for controlling access to a wireless communication device5,738,583 ("583") Interactive wireless gaming system

asserted by Microsoft in 19 January 2011 answer to original complaint6,374,276 ("276") Handheld computing device with external notification system7,454,718 ("718") Browser navigation for devices with a limited input system6,822,664 ("664") Browser navigation for devices with a limited input system7,421,666 ("666") Browser navigation for devices with a limited input system6,256,642 ("642") Method and system for file system management using a flash-erasable, programmable, read-only memory

'276

'718

'664

'666

'642

Andro

idph

ones

DroidX

Droid2

Backflip

Charm Cliq i1 Ne

twork

route

rs

MeshWA

NAP7

181

CPEi1

50** aka "CLEAR Home Modem"




26/26

Referencematerial

as per11 Dec 11

page R-8

United States District Court for the Northern District of CaliforniaCase no. 3:11-cv-03136 -- complaint filed on 24 June 2011 --counterclaims separated from ITC investigation no. 337-TA-744

Motorola Mobility, Inc. (of Libertyville, IL 60048) -- counterclaimant --vs. Microsoft Corporation (of Redmond, WA 98052)

Motorola brought counterclaims against Microsoft's ITC complaint, claiming that Microsoft owes Motorola a license to certain patents on

RAND terms further to commitments made to the SD Card Association.

On November 21, 2011, the court granted a Microsoft motion to transfer these claims to the Western District of Washington.

Landgericht Mannheim (Mannheim Regional Court), 7. ZivilkammerCase number(s) unknown -- filing date(s) of complaint(s) unknown, apparently in 2011

Motorola Mobility (respectively, General Instrument Corp.) vs. Microsoft (legal entities unknown)

asserted by Motorola MobilityEP0739521 ("EP521") method of splitting handwritten inputEP0847654 ("EP654") multiple pager status synchronization system and method

asserted by General InstrumentEP0538667 ("EP667") adaptive motion compensation using a plurality of motion compensatorsEP0615384 ("EP384") adaptive compression of digital video data

Landgericht Mnchen I (Munich I Regional Court), 7. ZivilkammerCase numbers: 7 O 19333/11, 7 O 19334/11, and 7 O 20429/11--filing date(s) of complaint(s) unknown, apparently in 2011

Microsoft vs. Motorola Mobility (legal entities unknown)

asserted by MicrosoftEP0669021 ("EP021") multi-lingual computer programsEP1304891 ("EP891") communicating multi-part messages between cellular devices using a standardized interfaceEP0651328 ("EP328") event architecture for system management in an operating system



Documents

MicrosoftVsMotorola_11.12.11