MicrosoftVsMotorola 11.12.11

Microsoft versus Motorola The patent battlefield as of 11Dec11
The next 17 pages show howthis conflict has escalated. Move by move.
R A N D
Microsoft
15 6 5 +R 4
5 1 7
1 3 3
3 5 2
5 6 6
0 5 4
7 4 6
7 6 2
9 1 0
3 7 6
5 3 6
8 5 3
2 1 4
1 3 0
4 6 0
9 0 4
9 0 1
2 7 6
7 1 8
6 6 4
6 6 6
6 4 2
7 8 0
E E 5 P P 8 0 8 2 2 9 1 1
E P 3 2 8
version 11.12.11.100 2010, 2011 by Florian Mueller http://fosspatents.blogspot.com Twitter: @FOSSpatents
W D W A
Southern District of Florida
I T C
S D F L
6
W D W I
N D C A
L G M A
L G M 1
15 6
6 3 7 3 5 2 4
R A N D
23 7 +R
Motorola
8 3 9
8 9 9
0 0 1
3 3 3
1 7 6
5 4 4
3 7 0
3 7 4
3 7 5
3 7 6
5 1 6
7 1 2
5 7 1
9 3 1
5 9 6
0 9 4
8 9 6
5 8 0
3 5 8
2 2 0
E E E 5 P P P 8 6 3 5 3 6 8 2 7 4 1
E P 6 5 4
Landgericht Mnchen (Munich) I
US International Trade Commission
Western District of Washington
Western District of Wisconsin
Northern District ofCalifornia
Landgericht Mannheim
Move #1 01 Oct 10 Microsoft files two complaints against Motorola (with a federal court and the ITC)
Microsoft
5 1 7
1 3 3
3 5 2
5 6 6
0 5 4
7 4 6
7 6 2
9 1 0
3 7 6
Move #1: Microsoft files two complaints against Motorola: one in the Western District of Washington, another with the ITC. Both relate to the same 9 patents.
W D W A
I T C
2010, 2011 by Florian Mueller http://fosspatents.blogspot.com Twitter: @FOSSpatents
Western District of Washington 9
Motorola
Move #2 09 Nov 10 Microsoft files another complaint against Motorola, over RAND licensing obligations -motion to stay first suit
R A N D
Microsoft
5 1 7
1 3 3
3 5 2
5 6 6
0 5 4
7 4 6
7 6 2
9 1 0
Move #2, step 1/2: In a second complaint against Motorola in the Western District of Washington, Microsoft alleges Motorola's failure to comply with RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) licensing commitments Motorola made to certain standard-setting organizations (IEEE-SA and ITU) and their members.
3 7 6
W D W A
I T C
Move #2, step 2/2: Since Microsoft asserted the same patents in its original infringement suit in Washington as in its ITC complaint, the parties jointly move to stay the original infringement suit for the duration of the ITC investigation.
9 9 +R
Motorola
Move #3 10 Nov 10 Motorola files three complaints against Microsoft in two federal courts
R A N D
Microsoft
7 9
5 1 7
1 3 3
3 5 2
5 6 6
0 5 4
7 4 6
7 6 2
9 1 0
3 7 6
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).
W D W A
I T C
S D F L
9
W D W I
9 9 +R
Motorola
8 3 9
8 9 9
0 0 1
3 3 3
1 7 6
5 4 4
3 7 0
3 7 4
3 7 5
3 7 6
5 1 6
7 1 2
Western District of Wisconsin 6
5 7 1
9 3 1
5 9 6
0 9 4
Move #4 22 Nov 10 Motorola files ITC complaint, amends one Wisconsin complaint
R A N D
Microsoft
9 7 10 5
5 1 7
1 3 3
3 5 2
5 6 6
0 5 4
7 4 6
7 6 2
9 1 0
3 7 6
W D W A
I T C
S D F L
9 10 67
W D W I
9 9 +R
Motorola
Nothing changed about the '516 and '931 patents this 1 5 8 8 at0 3 stage. 3 3 3 3 5 7 5 9 5 0 8 3 9The new 7 4 7 7 7 7 1 1 7 3 9 9 9 0 3 lines 9 just separate them 4 5 6 6 2 1 1 6 4 6 9 1 3 6 4 0 from those patents that are asserted in the ITC complaint as well.
Move #4: Motorola files an ITC complaint against Microsoft over 5 patents that the Xbox 360 allegedly infringes: 4 of those patents were previously asserted in one of the two suits in the Western District of Wisconsin, the 5th one is new and it's simultaneously added to that Wisconsin suit by way of an amended complaint. At this point, only the '516 and '931 patents are part of that Wisconsin suit but not of the ITC complaint.
Move #5 23 Dec 10 Motorola files a third Wisconsin complaint

R A N D
Microsoft
10 7 12 5
5 1 7
1 3 3
3 5 2
5 6 6
0 5 4
7 4 6
7 6 2
9 1 0
3 7 6
W D W A
I T C
S D F L
10 9 76
W D W I
Move #5: Motorola files a third Wisconsin complaint, asserting three patents against Kinect and Xbox. Those three patents include two new ones and the '931 patent previously asserted in another Wisconsin suit. Motorola says it will "seek dismissal without prejudice relating to" the '931 patent in that other suit. This chart reflects Motorola's announcement (on 18 January 2011, Motorola indeed acted accordingly). On that basis, only 1 of the 6 patents remaining in that other suit (the '516 patent) is not simultaneously part of Motorola's ITC complaint.
3 7 3 5
9 9 +R
Motorola
8 3 9
8 9 9
0 0 1
3 3 3
1 7 6
5 4 4
3 7 0
3 7 4
3 7 5
3 7 6
5 1 6
7 1 2
5 7 1
9 3 1
5 9 6
0 9 4
8 9 6
5 8 0
3 5 8
Move #6 23 Dec 10 Microsoft makes counterclaims in Southern Florida, asserting 7 patents

R A N D
Microsoft
7 12 5
5 1 7
1 3 3
3 5 2
5 6 6
0 5 4
7 4 6
7 6 2
9 1 0
3 7 6
5 3 6
8 5 3
2 1 4
1 3 0
4 6 0
9 0 4
9 0 1
Move #6: On the same day on which Motorola filed its third Wisconsin suit, Microsoft makes counterclaims in the Southern Florida case, asserting 7 patents: 5 of them against Motorola's Android smartphones, and 2 against Motorola set-top boxes with DVR functionality.
W D W A

6
I T C
S D F L
9
W D W I
3 7 3 5
9 9 7 +R
Motorola
8 3 9
8 9 9
0 0 1
3 3 3
1 7 6
5 4 4
3 7 0
3 7 4
3 7 5
3 7 6
5 1 6
7 1 2
5 7 1
9 3 1
5 9 6
0 9 4
8 9 6
5 8 0
3 5 8
Move #7 17-18 Jan 11 The parties stipulate to stay the 2nd Wisconsin case, Motorola drops one patent from it
R A N D
Microsoft
7 12 5
5 1 7
1 3 3
3 5 2
5 6 6
0 5 4
7 4 6
7 6 2
9 1 0
3 7 6
5 3 6
8 5 3
2 1 4
1 3 0
4 6 0
9 0 4
9 0 1
W D W A
Move #7, part 1/2: The parties stipulate to stay the 2nd Wisconsin case for the duration of ITC investigation no. 337-TA-752. On 21 January 2011, the judge orders to stay that case.
6
I T C
S D F L
W D W I
3 7 3 5
9 9 7 +R
Motorola
8 3 9
8 9 9
0 0 1
3 3 3
1 7 6
5 4 4
3 7 0
3 7 4
3 7 5
3 7 6
5 1 6
7 1 2
5 7 1
9 3 1
5 9 6
0 9 4
8 9 6
5 8 0
3 5 8
Move #7, part 1/2: Motorola files a second amended complaint, drops (as previously announced) the 931 patent it had meanwhile asserted in the 3rd Wisconsin case.
Move #8 19 Jan 11 Microsoft counterclaims in the 3rd Wisconsin suit, asserts 5patents
R A N D
Microsoft
7 12 5
5 1 7
1 3 3
3 5 2
5 6 6
0 5 4
7 4 6
7 6 2
9 1 0
3 7 6
5 3 6
8 5 3
2 1 4
1 3 0
4 6 0
9 0 4
9 0 1
2 7 6
7 1 8
6 6 4
6 6 6
6 4 2
Move #8: Microsoft counterclaims in the 3rd Wisconsin suit, asserts five patents.
W D W A

6
I T C
S D F L
9
W D W I
3 7 3 5
9 9 7 +R
Motorola
8 3 9
8 9 9
0 0 1
3 3 3
1 7 6
5 4 4
3 7 0
3 7 4
3 7 5
3 7 6
5 1 6
7 1 2
5 7 1
9 3 1
5 9 6
0 9 4
8 9 6
5 8 0
3 5 8
Move #9 25 Jan 11 Microsoft counterclaims in the 1st Wisconsin suit, asserts 2patents
R A N D
Microsoft
7 12 5
5 1 7
1 3 3
3 5 2
5 6 6
0 5 4
7 4 6
7 6 2
9 1 0
3 7 6
5 3 6
8 5 3
2 1 4
1 3 0
4 6 0
9 0 4
9 0 1
2 7 6
7 1 8
6 6 4
6 6 6
6 4 2
7 8 0
5 8 2
Move #9: Microsoft counterclaims in the 1st Wisconsin suit, asserts two patents.
W D W A

6
I T C
S D F L
9
W D W I
3 7 3 5
9 9 7 +R
Motorola
5 7
8 3 9
8 9 9
0 0 1
3 3 3
1 7 6
5 4 4
3 7 0
3 7 4
3 7 5
3 7 6
5 1 6
7 1 2
5 7 1
9 3 1
5 9 6
0 9 4
8 9 6
5 8 0
3 5 8
Move #10 14 Feb 11 Motorola amends its third Wisconsin suit, adds two patents
R A N D
Microsoft
12 7 14 5
5 1 7
1 3 3
3 5 2
5 6 6
0 5 4
7 4 6
7 6 2
9 1 0
3 7 6
5 3 6
8 5 3
2 1 4
1 3 0
4 6 0
9 0 4
9 0 1
2 7 6
7 1 8
6 6 4
6 6 6
6 4 2
7 8 0
5 8 2
7 5
W D W A

6
I T C
S D F L
9
W D W I
5 3 7 3 5 2
Move #10: Motorola amends its 3rd Wisconsin complaint, adds two patents.
9 9 7 +R
Motorola
8 3 9
8 9 9
0 0 1
3 3 3
1 7 6
5 4 4
3 7 0
3 7 4
3 7 5
3 7 6
5 1 6
7 1 2
5 7 1
9 3 1
5 9 6
0 9 4
8 9 6
5 8 0
3 5 8
2 2 0
5 8 3
Move #11 18-28 Feb 11 The first Wisconsin suit is transferred to Washington
R A N D
Microsoft
14 7 11 5 3
5 1 7
1 3 3
3 5 2
5 6 6
0 5 4
7 4 6
7 6 2
9 1 0
3 7 6
5 3 6
8 5 3
2 1 4
1 3 0
4 6 0
9 0 4
9 0 1
2 7 6
7 1 8
6 6 4
6 6 6
6 4 2
7 8 0
5 8 2
Move #11. part 2/2: Microsoft's counterclaims in that case are also transferred.
7 5
W D W A
I T C
S D F L
96
W D W I
6 7 3 5
9 9 7 11+R
7 5
Move #11. part 1/2: 5 On 18 February 2011, the Wisconsin court agrees 3 with Microsoft and orders 2 the transfer of the first of the three Wisconsin suits (case no. 3:10-cv-00699) to Washington.
5 9 6 0 9 4 8 9 6 5 8 0 3 5 8 2 2 0 5 8 3
Motorola
8 3 9
8 9 9
0 0 1
3 3 3
1 7 6
5 4 4
3 7 0
3 7 4
3 7 5
3 7 6
5 1 6
7 1 2
5 7 1
9 3 1
Move #12 01-08 Apr 11 Another Wisconsin suit is transferred to Washington

R A N D
Microsoft
7 11 6 5 3 8
5 1 7
1 3 3
3 5 2
5 6 6
0 5 4
7 4 6
7 6 2
9 1 0
3 7 6
5 3 6
8 5 3
2 1 4
1 3 0
4 6 0
9 0 4
9 0 1
2 7 6
7 1 8
6 6 4
6 6 6
6 4 2
7 8 0
5 8 2
W D W A
8 6 5 6 3 7 3 5 2
11 9 7 16+R
Motorola
8 3 9
8 9 9
0 0 1
3 3 3
1 7 6
5 4 4
I T C
S D F L
W D W I
Move #12: The Wisconsin-based court grants Microsoft's motion for transfer of another case (the third one filed there by Motorola) to Washington. At this stage, two of the three Wisconsin suits have been transferred, and the third one is stayed for the duration of an ITC investigation and may subsequently be transferred as well.
3 7 0
3 7 4
3 7 5
3 7 6
5 1 6
7 1 2
5 7 1
9 3 1
5 9 6
0 9 4
8 9 6
5 8 0
3 5 8
2 2 0
5 8 3
Move #13 24 Jun 11 Motorola brings RANDrelated counterclaims against Microsoft at the ITC and moves them to the Northern District of California
R A N D
Microsoft
7 6 5 8 R
5 1 7
1 3 3
3 5 2
5 6 6
0 5 4
7 4 6
7 6 2
9 1 0
3 7 6
5 3 6
8 5 3
2 1 4
1 3 0
4 6 0
9 0 4
9 0 1
2 7 6
7 1 8
6 6 4
6 6 6
6 4 2
7 8 0
5 8 2
W D W A
8 6 5 6 3 7 3 5 2
R A N D
16 9 7 +R
Motorola
8 3 9
8 9 9
0 0 1
3 3 3
1 7 6
5 4 4
I T C
S D F L
W D W I
N D C A
Move #13: Motorola brings RANDrelated counterclaims concerning Microsoft's FAT patents at the ITC. ITC counterclaims must be severed and filed in a federal court. Motorola chooses the Northern District of California because it claims an entitlement to a RAND license under an agreement that requires litigation in that district.
3 7 0
3 7 4
3 7 5
3 7 6
5 1 6
7 1 2
5 7 1
9 3 1
5 9 6
0 9 4
8 9 6
5 8 0
3 5 8
2 2 0
5 8 3
Move #14 11-12 Aug 11 Microsoft drops two patents from its ITC complaint (but not from the companion lawsuit in Wash.)
R A N D
Microsoft
7 6 5 8 R
5 1 7
1 3 3
3 5 2
5 6 6
0 5 4
7 4 6
7 6 2
9 1 0
3 7 6
5 3 6
8 5 3
2 1 4
1 3 0
4 6 0
9 0 4
9 0 1
2 7 6
7 1 8
6 6 4
6 6 6
6 4 2
7 8 0
5 8 2
97
W D W A
8 6 5 6 3 7 3 5 2
R A N D
16 9 7 +R 7
Motorola
8 3 9
8 9 9
0 0 1
3 3 3
1 7 6
5 4 4
I T C
3 7 0
3 7 4
3 7 5
3 7 6
5 1 6
7 1 2
5 7 1
9 3 1
5 9 6
0 9 4
8 9 6
5 8 0
Move #14: Microsoft files a "motion to streamline" the ITC investigation and drops two patents from its ITC complaint. Those patents remain asserted in the companion (mirror) litigation in the Western District of Washington.
S D F L
W D W I
N D C A
3 5 8
2 2 0
5 8 3
Move #15 17 Aug 11 The Southern Florida lawsuit is transferred to Washington, thwarting Motorola's tactical plans
R A N D
Microsoft
8 6 5 15 R
5 1 7
1 3 3
3 5 2
5 6 6
0 5 4
7 4 6
7 6 2
9 1 0
3 7 6
5 3 6
8 5 3
2 1 4
1 3 0
4 6 0
9 0 4
9 0 1
2 7 6
7 1 8
6 6 4
6 6 6
6 4 2
7 8 0
5 8 2
W D W A
8 15 6 6
I T C
S D F L
W D W I
N D C A
6 3 7 3 5
Move #15: The court in Southern Florida grants Microsoft's motion to transfer the case to Western Washington. This venue transfer decision gives Microsoft not only the home court advantage but, far more importantly, thwarts Motorola's plan to have at least one federal decision that might work out in its favor before the ITC takes its final decision on Microsoft's ITC complaint.
R A N D
16 7 23+R
Motorola
8 3 9
8 9 9
0 0 1
3 3 3
1 7 6
5 4 4
3 7 0
3 7 4
3 7 5
3 7 6
5 1 6
7 1 2
5 7 1
9 3 1
5 9 6
0 9 4
8 9 6
5 8 0
3 5 8
2 2 0
5 8 3
Move #16 13 Oct 11 A filing by Motorola in Northern Calif. reveals the parties' German lawsuits against each other
R A N D
Microsoft
6 5 15 R 4
5 1 7
1 3 3
3 5 2
5 6 6
0 5 4
7 4 6
7 6 2
9 1 0
3 7 6
5 3 6
8 5 3
2 1 4
1 3 0
4 6 0
9 0 4
9 0 1
2 7 6
7 1 8
6 6 4
6 6 6
6 4 2
7 8 0
E E 5 P P 8 0 8 2 2 9 1 1
E P 3 2 8
Move #16: A pleading by Motorola in the RAND-related litigation in Northern California reveals a 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.
W D W A
I T C
S D F L
6
W D W I
N D C A
L G M A
L G M 1
15
5 6 3 7 3 5 2 4
R A N D
23 7 +R
Motorola
8 3 9
8 9 9
0 0 1
3 3 3
1 7 6
5 4 4
3 7 0
3 7 4
3 7 5
3 7 6
5 1 6
7 1 2
5 7 1
9 3 1
5 9 6
0 9 4
8 9 6
5 8 0
3 5 8
2 2 0
E E E 5 P P P 8 6 3 5 3 6 8 2 7 4 1
E P 6 5 4
Move #17 21 Nov 11 Motorola's RAND counterclaims are transferred from Northern Calif. to Western Wash.
R A N D
Microsoft
15 6 5 +R 4
5 1 7
1 3 3
3 5 2
5 6 6
0 5 4
7 4 6
7 6 2
9 1 0
3 7 6
5 3 6
8 5 3
2 1 4
1 3 0
4 6 0
9 0 4
9 0 1
2 7 6
7 1 8
6 6 4
6 6 6
6 4 2
7 8 0
E E 5 P P 8 0 8 2 2 9 1 1
E P 3 2 8
W D W A
I T C
S D F L
6
W D W I
N D C A
L G M A
L G M 1
15
5 6 3
R A N D
23 7 +R
Motorola
Move #17: 7 3 5 4 2 Motorola's RAND-related counterclaims (concerning Microsoft's FAT patents) are transferred from the Northern E E E E 8 8 0of 3 1 5 3to 3 3 3 5 7 5 9 5 0 8 5 3 2 5 P P P P District California the 3 9 0 3 Western District7of 4 7 7 7 7 1 1 7 3 9 9 9 8 5 2 8 6 3 5 6 Washington.
9 9 1 3 6 4 0 4 5 6 6 2 1 1 6 4 6 0 8 0 3 6 7 8 2 4 1 5 4
Reference material as per 11 Dec 11 page R-1
United States International Trade Commission Investigation 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 later discussed the patents-in-suit. Allegedly infringing products Microsoft's complaint relates to Motorola's Android smartphones and states specifically accused products only as examples. Named accused 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) complaint 5,579,517 ("517") Common name space for long and short file names dropped from ITC complaint on August 11, 2011 5,758,352 ("352") Common name space for long and short file names 6,621,746 ("746") Monitoring entropic conditions of a flash memory device as an indicator for invoking erasure operations dropped from ITC complaint on August 11, 2011 6,826,762 ("762") Radio interface layer in a cell phone with a set of APIs having a hardware-independent proxy layer and a hardware-specific driver layer 6,909,910 ("910") Method and system for managing changes to a contact database 7,644,376 ("376") Flexible architecture for notifying applications of state changes 5,664,133 ("133") Context sensitive menu system/menu behavior 6,578,054 ("054") Method and system for supporting off-line mode of operation and synchronization using resource state information 6,370,566 ("566") Generating meeting requests and group scheduling from a mobile device
United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Case 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 based on 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 later discussed the patents-in-suit.
United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Case 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 its commitments to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standards Association ('IEEE-SA'), International Telecommunications 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 rate in 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 Florida Case 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) 2010, 2011 by Florian Mueller http://fosspatents.blogspot.com Twitter: @FOSSpatents 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 products For each of the patents, Motorola broadly accuses "operating systems, office software, server software, and/or communications and messaging software", but the specifically accused products then tend to be more limited in scope. A matrix on the next page shows the relationship 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 complaint 5,502,839 ("839") Object-oriented software architecture supporting input/output device independence 5,764,899 ("899") Method and apparatus for communicating an optimized reply 5,784,001 ("001") Method and apparatus for presenting graphic messages in a data communication receiver 6,272,333 ("333") Method and apparatus in a wireless communication system for controlling a delivery of data 6,408,176 ("176") Method and system for initiating a communication in a communication system 6,757,544 ("544") System and method for determining a location relevant to a communication device and/or its associated user 6,983,370 ("370") System for providing continuity between messaging clients and method therefor
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida Case no. 1:10-cv-24063 -- complaint filed on 10 November 2010 -- continued from previous page transfer to Western District of Washington ordered on 17 August 2011
3 0 07 ing ail 00 11 01 20 ag 7 6.5 20 r2 r2 otm ss er e e e ne er ta bile eH erv erv erv ng ho dM Vis 7 Mo Liv se eS eS eS ps sP fie s s s s s i ng ng ng ow Ma ow ow ow ow Un Me ha ha ha ind ind ind ind ind ith ing xc xc xc ive w B W E L E W W E W W
'839 '899 '001 '333 '176 '544 '370 2010, 2011 by Florian Mueller http://fosspatents.blogspot.com Twitter: @FOSSpatents
Microsoft counterclaims (23 December 2010 answer to original complaint)

Allegedly infringing products The 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 DVR examples 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 thereto 6,897,853 ("853") Highlevel active pen matrix 7,024,214 ("214") Synchronizing over a number of synchronization mechanisms using flexible rules 7,493,130 ("130") Synchronizing over a number of synchronization mechanisms using flexible rules 7,383,460 ("460") Method and system for configuring a timer 6,897,904 ("904") Method and system for selecting among multiple tuners 6,785,901 ("901") Altering locks on programming content
United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin Case 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). FOSSPatents commented 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 filing system on 28 February 2011. Allegedly infringing products For 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 the CliqXT and i1 for the '582 patent. Asserted patents (in order of appearance in documents filed with the court)
2010 by Florian Mueller http://fosspatents.blogspot.com Twitter: @FOSSpatents
asserted by Motorola in original complaint 7,310,374 ("374") Macroblock level adaptive frame/field coding for digital video content 7,310,375 ("375") Macroblock level adaptive frame/field coding for digital video content 7,310,376 ("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 complaint 6,339,780 ("780") Loading status in a hypermedia browser having a limited available display area 7,411,582 ("582") Soft input panel system and method
United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin Case no. 3:10-cv-00700 -- complaint filed on 10 November 2010
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-00699) and one with the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (case 1:10-cv-24063). FOSSPatents 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 parties agreed that Motorola would file a 2nd amended complaint dropping one patent. On 21 January 2011, the court ordered accordingly. Allegedly infringing products All 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 360 Pro/Premium, Xbox 360 Elite, Xbox 360 Arcade, and Xbox 360 S." The '712 and '516 patents allegedly read on "various models of the Xbox 360, including without limitation: (i) the Xbox 360 S; and (ii) in conjunction with the Xbox 360 Wireless Networking Adapter or the 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 certain models 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 patents (in order of appearance in documents filed with the court) asserted by Motorola in original complaint 6,980,596 ("596") * Macroblock level adaptive frame/field coding for digital video content 7,162,094 ("094") * Frequency coefficient scanning paths for coding digital video content 5,319,712 ("712") * Method and apparatus for providing cryptographic protection of a data stream in a communication system 5,357,571 ("571") * Method for point-to-point communications within secure communication systems 6,686,931 ("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 complaint 6,069,896 ("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 without being simultaneously asserted before the ITC, and Motorola agreed to stay the related infringement claim nevertheless.
United States International Trade Commission Investigation no. 337-TA-752 on "certain gaming and entertainment consoles, related software, and components thereof" -- complaint filed on 22 November 2010
Motorola Mobility, Inc. (of Libertyville, IL 60048) and General Instrument Corporation (of Horsham, PE 19044) vs. Microsoft Corporation (of Redmond, WA 98052) FOSS Patents reacted to this ITC complaint on the following day and later mentioned the ITC's decision to launch an investigation. Allegedly infringing products In 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 complaint 6,980,596 ("596") Macroblock level adaptive frame/field coding for digital video content 7,162,094 ("094") Frequency coefficient scanning paths for coding digital video content 5,319,712 ("712") Method and apparatus for providing cryptographic protection of a data stream in a communication system 5,357,571 ("571") Method for point-to-point communications within secure communication systems 6,069,896 ("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 Wisconsin Case 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 Kinect Gaming System, including without limitation the Kinect sensor device, the Xbox 360 S, Xbox 360 Core, Xbox 360 Pro/Premium, Xbox 360 Elite, Xbox 360 Arcade." For the '931 and '583 patents, Motorola accuses "various models of the Xbox 360, including without limitation 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 '642 patent, Microsoft additionally accuses "Motorola network router products, including at least the Motorola Mesh Wide Area Network AP 7181 and the Motorola CPEi150." A matrix below the list of asserted patents shows the relationship between Microsoft's patents-in-suit and the accused products.
United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin Case 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 complaint 6,992,580 ("580") Portable communication device and corresponding method of operation 7,106,358 ("358") Method, system and apparatus for telepresence communications 6,686,931 ("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 device 5,738,583 ("583") Interactive wireless gaming system asserted by Microsoft in 19 January 2011 answer to original complaint 6,374,276 ("276") Handheld computing device with external notification system 7,454,718 ("718") Browser navigation for devices with a limited input system 6,822,664 ("664") Browser navigation for devices with a limited input system 7,421,666 ("666") Browser navigation for devices with a limited input system 6,256,642 ("642") Method and system for file system management using a flash-erasable, programmable, read-only memory
An
oid dr
ph
es on ck Ba
X 2 oid oid Dr Dr
flip
arm Ch
q Cli
i1
1 18 s P7 ter u NA ro 0* WA ork i15 w sh E t Me Ne CP
* aka "CLEAR Home Modem"
'276 '718 '664 '666 '642
United States District Court for the Northern District of California Case 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. Zivilkammer Case 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 Mobility EP0739521 ("EP521") method of splitting handwritten input EP0847654 ("EP654") multiple pager status synchronization system and method 2010, 2011 by Florian Mueller http://fosspatents.blogspot.com Twitter: @FOSSpatents asserted by General Instrument EP0538667 ("EP667") adaptive motion compensation using a plurality of motion compensators EP0615384 ("EP384") adaptive compression of digital video data
Landgericht Mnchen I (Munich I Regional Court), 7. Zivilkammer Case 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 Microsoft EP0669021 ("EP021") multi-lingual computer programs EP1304891 ("EP891") communicating multi-part messages between cellular devices using a standardized interface EP0651328 ("EP328") event architecture for system management in an operating system

MicrosoftVsMotorola 11.12.11

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MicrosoftVsMotorola 11.12.11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Microsoft versus Motorola The patent battlefield as of 11Dec11

version 11.12.11.100 2010, 2011 by Florian Mueller http://fosspatents.blogspot.com Twitter: @FOSSpatents

Southern District of Florida

Landgericht Mnchen (Munich) I

US International Trade Commission

Western District of Washington

Western District of Wisconsin

Northern District ofCalifornia

US International Trade Commission

2010, 2011 by Florian Mueller http://fosspatents.blogspot.com Twitter: @FOSSpatents

Western District of Washington 9

US International Trade Commission

Western District of Washington

2010, 2011 by Florian Mueller http://fosspatents.blogspot.com Twitter: @FOSSpatents

2010, 2011 by Florian Mueller http://fosspatents.blogspot.com Twitter: @FOSSpatents

Southern District of Florida

US International Trade Commission

Western District of Washington

Western District of Wisconsin 6

2010, 2011 by Florian Mueller http://fosspatents.blogspot.com Twitter: @FOSSpatents

Southern District of Florida

US International Trade Commission

Western District of Washington

Western District of Wisconsin

Move #5 23 Dec 10 Motorola files a third Wisconsin complaint

2010, 2011 by Florian Mueller http://fosspatents.blogspot.com Twitter: @FOSSpatents

Southern District of Florida

US International Trade Commission

Western District of Washington

Western District of Wisconsin

Move #6 23 Dec 10 Microsoft makes counterclaims in Southern Florida, asserting 7 patents

2010, 2011 by Florian Mueller http://fosspatents.blogspot.com Twitter: @FOSSpatents

Southern District of Florida

US International Trade Commission

Western District of Washington

Western District of Wisconsin

2010, 2011 by Florian Mueller http://fosspatents.blogspot.com Twitter: @FOSSpatents

Southern District of Florida

US International Trade Commission

Western District of Washington

Western District of Wisconsin

2010, 2011 by Florian Mueller http://fosspatents.blogspot.com Twitter: @FOSSpatents

Southern District of Florida

US International Trade Commission

Western District of Washington

Western District of Wisconsin

2010, 2011 by Florian Mueller http://fosspatents.blogspot.com Twitter: @FOSSpatents

Southern District of Florida

US International Trade Commission

Western District of Washington

Western District of Wisconsin

2010, 2011 by Florian Mueller http://fosspatents.blogspot.com Twitter: @FOSSpatents

Southern District of Florida

US International Trade Commission

Western District of Washington

Western District of Wisconsin

2010, 2011 by Florian Mueller http://fosspatents.blogspot.com Twitter: @FOSSpatents

Southern District of Florida

US International Trade Commission

Western District of Washington

Western District of Wisconsin

Move #12 01-08 Apr 11 Another Wisconsin suit is transferred to Washington

2010, 2011 by Florian Mueller http://fosspatents.blogspot.com Twitter: @FOSSpatents