You are on page 1of 17

Case: 12-1548

Document: 206

Page: 1

Filed: 08/01/2013

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit


Nos. 2012-1548, 2012-1549 APPLE INC. AND NEXT SOFTWARE, INC. (formerly known as NeXTComputer, Inc.), Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MOTOROLA, INC. (now known as Motorola Solutions, Inc.) AND MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC., Defendants-Cross Appellants. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Case No. 11-cv-08540, Judge Richard Posner MOTION OF AMICI CURIAE VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC., AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF ADVERTISING AGENCIES, AND FORD MOTOR COMPANY FOR LEAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN ORAL ARGUMENT

CRAIG SILLIMAN GAIL F. LEVINE VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. 1300 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 (703) 351-3028

PAUL D. CLEMENT D. ZACHARY HUDSON BANCROFT PLLC 1919 M Street, NW, Suite 470 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 234-0090 pclement@bancroftpllc.com

August 1, 2013

Case: 12-1548

Document: 206

Page: 2

Filed: 08/01/2013

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN ORAL ARGUMENT Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(g), Amici Curiae Verizon Communications Inc., the American Association of Advertising Agencies, and Ford Motor Company (Amici) respectfully request leave to participate in oral argument in this case. Counsel for Amici has discussed this motion with the parties. Apple has advised that it takes no position on this motion, so long as any time allocation is added to the time that has already been granted, but opposes any accommodation that would decrease the time already allocated. Motorola will file an opposition. On December 4, 2012, Amici moved this Court for leave to file an amicus brief, and that motion was granted on December 27, 2012. As Amici explained in that brief, in order for the patent system to foster innovation and avoid distorting competition, it must employ remedies that replicate the reward the patentee would have earned absent infringement. Making injunctive relief available in suits

involving RAND-encumbered patents and patented technology that does not drive demand for the product does far more. It allows patentees to capture more than the economic value of their patentsthey are able to obtain the costs of after-the-fact switching to noninfringing alternatives. By the same token, awarding reasonable royalty damages in an amount exceeding the value of the patented technology over alternatives at the time of design allows patentees to obtain profits in excess of the

Case: 12-1548

Document: 206

Page: 3

Filed: 08/01/2013

economic value of their inventive contribution. That overcompensation injures competition, threatens innovation, and is fundamentally inconsistent with the patent bargain. Judge Posners treatment of remedial issues appropriately takes these concerns into account. Judge Posner correctly concluded that injunctive relief should be unavailable when the patent in suit is RAND-encumbered. Along the same lines, Judge Posners submission that injunctive relief should not be awarded when the patent at issue reads on only a minor component in a multi-component device is well-grounded in traditional equitable principles and sound economic methodology. Furthermore, as Judge Posner suggests, the correct measure of reasonable royalty damages is constrained by the value of the patented technology over alternatives at the time of the design decision. Nonetheless, neither party to the appeal has defended Judge Posners reasoning nor the judgment below. In comparable circumstances, the Supreme Court routinely appoints an amicus curiae to ensure that the Court receives the full benefit of adversary presentation and that the reasoning of the decision below is adequately defended. Given Amicis

substantial agreement with Judge Posners reasoning on the remedial issues in this case, Amici respectfully request that they be allowed argument time to perform a similar function.

Case: 12-1548

Document: 206

Page: 4

Filed: 08/01/2013

This Court has allowed amicus to participate in oral argument in dozens of cases, including several patent cases1, and allowing Amici to participate in oral argument in this case would be particularly appropriate for three reasons. First, as noted, because both Apple and Motorola appeal Judge Posners dismissal of their respective infringement cases, neither party defends Judge Posners reasoning in full. The parties appeal of Judge Posners decision addressing the availability of See, e.g., Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc., 549 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (amicus curiae Generic Pharmaceutical Association); In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) affd but criticized sub nom. Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010) (amici curiae Regulatory Datacorp, Inc., Bank of America, and others); In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (amici curiae The Biotechnology Industry Assn and The Bay Area Bioscience Center); Dana Corp. v. Am. Precision Co., 827 F.2d 755 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (amicus curiae Automotive Parts Rebuilders Assn); see also Chambers v. Dept of Interior, 602 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (amicus curiae National Treasury Employees Union); In re Bose Corp., 580 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (amicus curiae American Intellectual Property Law Assn); SKF USA, Inc. v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot., 556 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (amicus curiae Giorgio Foods, Inc.); Gingery v. Dept of Def., 550 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (amicus curiae National Treasury Employees Union); Mayfield v. Nicholson, 444 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (amicus curiae The Veterans Law Group); Vaughn v. Principi, 336 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (amici curiae National Veterans Legal Services Program); United Pac. Ins. Co. v. Roche, 294 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (amicus curiae The Surety Assn of America); Texport Oil Co. v. United States, 185 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (amicus curiae American Petroleum Institute); Lachance v. White, 174 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (amicus curiae Government Accountability Project); Aviall of Texas, Inc. v. United States, 70 F.3d 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (amicus curiae Delta Air Lines, Inc.); Transamerica Ins. Co. v. United States, 989 F.2d 1188 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (amicus curiae American Ins. Assn); Motorola, Inc. v. United States, 988 F.2d 113 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (amicus curiae Rockwell Intl Corp); True v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 926 F.2d 1151 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (amicus curiae Natl Assn of Letter Carriers, AFLCIO); Fundicao Tupy S.A. v. United States, 841 F.2d 1101 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (amicus curiae OKI Electric Industry Co., Ltd).
1

Case: 12-1548

Document: 206

Page: 5

Filed: 08/01/2013

equitable relief is a prime example. Judge Posner concluded that neither party . . . ha[d] shown that damages would not be an adequate remedy for infringement. Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 869 F. Supp. 2d 901, 915 (N.D. Ill. 2012). As Judge Posner explained, a patentee cant obtain an injunction . . . if either damages or an equitable substitute such as a running royalty would provide complete relief and [o]rdinarily a running royalty, combined with damages for past sales, should provide full compensation to the patentee, thus obviating injunctive relief. Id. at 922. Both parties challenge that conclusion with respect to their own claims, making it impossible for either party to fully defend Judge Posners treatment of their adversary. Compare Apple Opening Br. at 55 (money damages cannot

adequately compensate Apple for Motorolas infringement) and Motorola Response & Opening Br. at 73 (a FRAND royalty is an inadequate remedy) with id. at 45-46 (money damages would be an adequate remedy for Motorolas alleged infringement of Apples patent) and Apple Response & Reply Br. at 41 (a royalty provides compensation for the use of [Motorolas] patents). Relatedly, echoing Justice Kennedys concurring opinion in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), Judge Posner concluded that [a] compulsory license with [an] ongoing royalty is likely to be a superior remedy in a case like this because of the frequent disproportion between harm to the patentee from infringement and harm to the infringer and to the public from an injunction.

Case: 12-1548

Document: 206

Page: 6

Filed: 08/01/2013

869 F. Supp. 2d at 918. Again, this conclusion applies with equal force to both parties, making it impossible for either party to defend the full breadth of Judge Posners view of equitable relief. Compare Apple Opening Br. at 71-72 (the balance of harms and public interest support Apples request for an injunction) and Motorola Response & Opening Br. at 70-71 (withholding injunctive relief in the FRAND context will harm consumers) with id. at 47 (the balance of hardships and public interest counsel against granting Apple injunctive relief) and Apple Response & Reply Br. at 48-49 (the balance of hardships and public interest cut against Motorola). Both parties focus on threading the needle of allowing their own remedial claims while denying those of their adversary; neither party defends the broader rule embraced by the court below. Amici stand ready to defend the entirety of Judge Posners reasoning regarding damages and equitable relief. As noted, the Supreme Court often

appoints amicus to argue in support of the judgment below in comparable circumstances.2 Allowing Amici to participate in oral argument would be

consistent with that practice and would ensure that this Court has the benefit of

See, e.g., United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013); Millbrook v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1441 (2013); Levin v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1224 (2013); Sebelius v. Auburn Regl Med. Ctr., 133 S. Ct. 817 (2013); Natl Fedn of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566 (2012); Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (2011); Pepper v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 1229 (2011).

Case: 12-1548

Document: 206

Page: 7

Filed: 08/01/2013

hearing from litigants that fully embrace Judge Posners reasoning and conclusions. Second, Amici are well-situated to assist the Court in deciding the critically important issues involved in this appeal. Verizon is a leading provider of high technology products and services, and its business depends on systems and devices that incorporate a large number of components and perform a variety of functions. In that capacity, Verizon must frequently defend against baseless allegations of patent infringement. Verizon also owns a large patent portfolio, reflecting its role as a leading innovator in the communications industry. As both a frequent target of meritless patent litigation and an owner of intellectual property, Verizon is positioned at a crossroads that gives it a unique insight into the issues at the heart of this case. The American Association of Advertising Agencies is the national trade association of the advertising agency business. The 1,196 member agency offices it serves offer a wide range of marketing communications services, and place 80 percent of all national advertising. The offices often design websites for

customers, which are frequently the subjects of patent infringement suits. The management-oriented association helps its members build their businesses, and acts as the industrys spokesperson with government, media, and the public sector.

Case: 12-1548

Document: 206

Page: 8

Filed: 08/01/2013

The perspective of the American Association of Advertising Agencies will be helpful to the Court in resolving this case. Ford Motor Company assembles and distributes motor vehicles

worldwide. Founded in 1903, Ford grew from a small enterprise into one of the worlds largest corporations due in great part to innovations like the Model T and the moving assembly line. Fords innovations have resulted in the issuance of thousands of patents, many of which in turn have laid the foundation for future developments. Like the other Amici, Fords perspective will provide valuable assistance to the Court in understanding the important issues at stake in this case. Third, the Courts decision in this case will have a considerable effect on patent litigation for years to come, and specifically on cases that involve RANDencumbered patents and patents covering only minor components in multicomponent devices. Judge Posners opinion speaks to profoundly important issues of patent remedies and neither party squarely supports his reasoning. It is vital that a litigant that is in full agreement with Judge Posner participate in oral argument as this Court addresses the critical questions of when injunctive relief is warranted as a remedy for infringement and the proper method for calculating reasonable royalty damages. Amici believe that their participation in oral argument will assist the Court in understanding Judge Posners reasoning and the profound importance of the

Case: 12-1548

Document: 206

Page: 9

Filed: 08/01/2013

issues at stake in this case. Accordingly, Amici respectfully move that the Court grant leave to participate in oral argument. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Paul D. Clement Paul D. Clement D. Zachary Hudson BANCROFT PLLC 1919 M Street, NW, Suite 470 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 234-0090

Craig Silliman Gail F. Levine VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. 1300 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 (703) 351-3028

August 1, 2013

Case: 12-1548

Document: 206

Page: 10

Filed: 08/01/2013

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit


Nos. 2012-1548, 2012-1549 APPLE INC. AND NEXT SOFTWARE, INC. (formerly known as NeXT Computer, Inc.), Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MOTOROLA, INC. (now known as Motorola Solutions, Inc.) AND MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC., Defendants-Cross Appellants. ON MOTION [PROPOSED] ORDER Upon consideration of the motion of Verizon Communications Inc., the American Association of Advertising Agencies, and Ford Motor Company for leave to participate in oral argument, the Court finds that Amicis argument will assist in determination of this appeal. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that leave to participate in oral argument is GRANTED. FOR THE COURT DATE:_________________ _________________________ United States Court of Appeals For the Federal Circuit

Case: 12-1548

Document: 206

Page: 11

Filed: 08/01/2013

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, D. Zachary Hudson, hereby certify that on August 1, 2013, I electronically served a copy of the foregoing motion via the Courts CM/ECF system on the following: E. Joshua Rosenkranz Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP 51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Mark S. Davies, Esq. Katherine M. Kopp Rachel M. McKenzie T. Vann Pearce, Jr. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliff LLP Columbia Center 1152 15th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Brian E. Ferguson Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 1300 I Street, NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 Matthew D. Powers Tensegrity Law Group, LLP Suite 360 555 Twin Dolphin Drive Redwood City, CA 94065 Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants Apple, Inc., Next Software, Inc., FKA NeXT Computer, Inc. David A. Nelson Stephen A. Swedlow Amanda Scott Williamson Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 500 West Madison Street Suite 2450 Chicago, IL 60661 Brian Cosmo Cannon Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 5th Floor 555 Twin Dolphin Drive Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Edward J. DeFranco David Morad Elihu Raymond N. Nimrod Kathleen M. Sullivan Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 51 Madison Ave. 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010

Case: 12-1548

Document: 206

Page: 12

Filed: 08/01/2013

Charles Kramer Verhoeven Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 22nd Floor 50 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Counsel for Defendants CrossAppellants Motorola, Inc., NKA Motorola Solutions, Inc., Motorola Mobility, Inc. Patrick J. Flinn, Esq. Keith E. Broyles, Esq. Alston & Bird LLP 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 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

Case: 12-1548

Document: 206

Page: 13

Filed: 08/01/2013

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 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. 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

Case: 12-1548

Document: 206

Page: 14

Filed: 08/01/2013

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 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/ D. Zachary Hudson D. Zachary Hudson

Case: 12-1548
Form 9 FORM 9. Certicate of Interest

Document: 206

Page: 15

Filed: 08/01/2013

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT


Apple Inc. Motorola Mobility, LLC ____________________________ v. ____________________________ 2012-1548 No. _______

CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
Counsel for the (petitioner) (appellant) (respondent) (appellee) (amicus) (name of party)
Amicus Verizon Communications Inc. _______________________

certifies the following (use None if applicable; use extra sheets

if necessary): 1. The full name of every party or amicus represented by me is: Verizon Communications Inc. _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ 2. The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in the caption is not the real party in interest) represented by me is: Verizon Communications Inc. _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10 percent or more of the stock of the party or amicus curiae represented by me are: None _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ 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: _____________________________________________________________________________ Bancroft PLLC: Paul D. Clement; D. Zachary Hudson _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________ 8/1/13 Date _______________________________ /s/Paul D. Clement Signature of counsel _______________________________ Paul D. Clement Printed name of counsel Please Note: All questions must be answered Counsel cc: All ___________________________________

124

Case: 12-1548
Form 9 FORM 9. Certicate of Interest

Document: 206

Page: 16

Filed: 08/01/2013

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT


Apple Inc. Motorola Mobility, LLC ____________________________ v. ____________________________ 2012-1548 No. _______

CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
Counsel for the (petitioner) (appellant) (respondent) (appellee) (amicus) (name of party)
Amicus American Association of Advertising Agencies

_______________________ certifies the following (use None if applicable; use extra sheets if necessary): 1. The full name of every party or amicus represented by me is:

American Association of Advertising Agencies _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ 2. The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in the caption is not the real party in interest) represented by me is: American Association of Advertising Agencies _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10 percent or more of the stock of the party or amicus curiae represented by me are: None _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ 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: _____________________________________________________________________________ Bancroft PLLC: Paul D. Clement; D. Zachary Hudson _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________ 8/1/2013 Date _______________________________ /s/Paul D. Clement Signature of counsel _______________________________ Paul D. Clement Printed name of counsel Please Note: All questions must be answered Counsel cc: All ___________________________________

124

Case: 12-1548
Form 9 FORM 9. Certicate of Interest

Document: 206

Page: 17

Filed: 08/01/2013

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT


Apple Inc. Motorola Mobility, LLC ____________________________ v. ____________________________ 2012-1548 No. _______

CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
Counsel for the (petitioner) (appellant) (respondent) (appellee) (amicus) (name of party)
Amicus Ford Motor Company certifies the following (use None if applicable; use extra sheets _______________________

if necessary): 1. The full name of every party or amicus represented by me is: Ford Motor Company _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ 2. The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in the caption is not the real party in interest) represented by me is: Ford Motor Company _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10 percent or more of the stock of the party or amicus curiae represented by me are: There are publicly-traded corporations that may, from time to time, own more than 10% _____________________________________________________________________________ of Fords stock as trustee or independent fiduciary for various employee plans. The _____________________________________________________________________________ most recent trustee owner in this capacity is State Street 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: _____________________________________________________________________________ Bancroft PLLC: Paul D. Clement; D. Zachary Hudson _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________ 8/1/13 Date _______________________________ /s/Paul D. Clement Signature of counsel _______________________________ Paul D. Clement Printed name of counsel Please Note: All questions must be answered Counsel cc: All ___________________________________

124