• Home
  • 1st Annual Symposium
  • About
  • Available Positions
  • Issues
    • Vol. 4 Issue 2
    • Vol. 4 Issue 1
    • Vol. 3 Issue 3
    • Vol. 3, Issue 2
    • Vol. 3, Issue 1
    • Vol. 2, Issue 3
    • Vol. 2, Issue 2
    • Vol. 2, Issue 1
    • Vol. 1, Issue 1
  • Staff
    • 2009-2010 Staff
    • 2010-2011 Staff
    • 2011-2012 Staff
    • 2012-2013 Staff
  • Submissions
  • Subscribe
Featured Article

A featured article from the current issue of the Intellectual Property Brief.

Daily Blog

A daily blog of IP-related news and issues

Articles

All of the Intellectual Property Brief’s published articles. All articles are hand-selected from outside submissions and from our very own IPB staff members.

Issues

PDF versions of each of the Intellectual Property Brief’s issues.

Short Circuit

Case-by-case summaries of intellectual property related opinions from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Home » Daily Blog, Featured, Patents

Microsoft Claims Victory Against Motorola Mobility’s German Lawsuit by Using a Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order Issued by a U.S. Judge in a Contract Dispute

Submitted by TJ Johnson on April 18, 2012 – 5:24 PM5179No Commenthttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2012%2F04%2F18%2Fmicrosoft-claims-victory-against-motorola-mobility%25e2%2580%2599s-german-lawsuit-by-using-a-preliminary-injunction-and-temporary-restraining-order-issued-by-a-u-s-judge-in-a-contract-dispute%2FMicrosoft+Claims+Victory+Against+Motorola+Mobility%E2%80%99s+German+Lawsuit+by+Using+a+Preliminary+Injunction+and+Temporary+Restraining+Order+Issued+by+a+U.S.+Judge+in+a+Contract+Dispute2012-04-18+21%3A24%3A31TJ+Johnsonhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D5179

Image Courtesy of TJ Johnson

What was once a nice partnership has definitely soured; Motorola Mobility and Microsoft have gone to the courts. Initially, both companies were working together on the development of Windows Mobile until Motorola left and chose the Android OS because Windows Mobile was “slow to evolve.” Since then, both companies have been wrapped up in litigation, presenting some interesting strategies.

In the rising recent battle between Microsoft and Motorola Mobility, each is throwing mud as fast as it can and getting creative about how they are doing it. Motorola Mobility owns industry standard patents on video compression and WiFi. Microsoft and Motorola entered into an agreement to license industry standard patents at a reasonable royalty rate. What is a reasonable rate for a piece of technology that is an industry required standard?  Motorola Mobility feels that a reasonable royalty rate is 2.25% of the retail product’s price, which could total to around $4 billion a year based on existing sales.  Microsoft claims that Motorola Mobility failed to license the video compression and WiFi patents on fair terms, and has brought them to court.

The dispute continued to expand when Motorola Mobility sought to block the sales of Xbox and Windows 7, their only option in the German court system. In Germany, there are no proportional monetary damages for patents, only injunctions stopping the sales and importing of products. In return, Microsoft has requested a ban on importation of Motorola phones into the U.S. that run the Android operating system. Currently, Microsoft’s European distribution center is located in Germany, meaning that a ban in the German courts could stop Microsoft from selling across all of Europe. Microsoft is so concerned by the idea of the courts banning sales in Germany that it is moving its entire distribution center to the Netherlands.

In an interesting strategy, Microsoft has requested a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in Seattle based on the contract dispute over patent licensing . Microsoft won the preliminary injunction and restraining order which prevents the German court from ruling on the validity of Motorola Mobility’s patents until the dispute is resolved. It remains unclear what the effects will be, but at the least, it has given Microsoft the time to move its distribution center allowing uninterrupted sales to the rest of Europe should Germany ban the sales of Microsoft’s Xbox and Windows 7 in Germany.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare

About the Author:

Author: TJ Johnson

TJ Johnson is the Senior Patent Editor for the IP Brief and a 3L at the Washington College of Law pursuing a career in patent law. He is also the Publications Editor for the Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law. Currently he is working as an intern for MacDonald, Illig, Jones and Britton in business and patent law. He holds a B.S. in Civil Engineering with a minor in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Nevada, Reno. Prior to law school, TJ worked designing embedded motion tracking and control systems for the solar power industry. TJ’s main interests are in patent law relating to the mechanical and computer arts. TJ enjoys flying as a private pilot, aircraft and semiconductor design, motorcycles and riding his bicycle.

TJ Johnson has written 5 posts for the IPB.

Leave a comment!

Click here to cancel reply »

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.

Copyright »

3D Printing and Intellectual Property: Copyright

3D Printing and Intellectual Property: Copyright

3D printing is the hot new topic in the tech world and with it come some possible issues related to safeguarding intellectual property. This two part post evaluates the possible issues that may arise due to 3D printing and why there isn’t any cause for alarm, yet.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Patents »

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Shortly after the oral arguments between Monsanto and Bowman, WCL hosted both parties for a post argument discussion. Recently the Supreme Court ruled on the case, requiring annual purchases of Monsanto’s soybeans.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Trademark »

Can “Boston Strong” be Trademarked?

Can “Boston Strong” be Trademarked?

Following the explosions on April 15, “Boston Strong” emerged as a viral hashtag on Twitter, a rallying cry at public events, and a logo on all kinds of apparels. It does not take too long for business opportunists to take advantage of this national tragedy.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Facebook

Accepting Submissions

The IP Brief is currently accepting submissions. We are looking for papers that address a legal topic relating to any area of intellectual property. Please submit completed papers and a cover page with the name and title of the article to ipbrief [at] wcl.american.edu. Any questions can also be sent to this e-mail address.

Blogroll

  • American University Washington College of Law
  • Carrollogos
  • Copyright Blog
  • GamePolitics
  • Intellectual Property Watch
  • PatentlyO
  • Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
  • Spicy IP
  • The TTABlog®
  • ©ollectanea

Tags

Archives

  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • January 2010

Random Posts

Heinz Sued Over Ketchup Packet INFLEXIBLE: COPYRIGHT OFFICE PUTS A HALT ON COPYRIGHTS FOR YOGA SEQUENCES Update: Charlie Sheen Files Applications to Trademark Two More Catch Phrases Space-Buzz: Astronaut Sues Singer Over CD Cover Going “Up”? Utah Homebuilder Transports Residents to the Fantasy World of Disney’s “Up” Urban Outfitters Sued for Trademark Infringement by Navajo Nation Getting a Trademark Holder’s Goat Protecting Passwords from Prying Eyes: Keeping Social Media from Employers & Universities America: Last in Line for First to File System Battle of the Blogs: New York Times Sues The Huffington Post Over Parenting Blog MGA Accuses Mattel of Toy Espionage Volume 3, Issue 2 of the Intellectual Property Brief is now available! The IP Clinic Advocates for Consumers in Aereo and Aereokiller Proceedings
(refresh random posts)

Latest Video Post

Relatively New Anti-Piracy PSA: Another Analogy Comparison of Piracy to Stealing Cars or an Effective Message?

Recent Posts

  • 3D Printing and Intellectual Property: Copyright
  • Can “Boston Strong” be Trademarked?
  • Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business
  • Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million
  • Appropriating Sid Vicious

Twitter

  • No public Twitter messages.
  • Copy / Paste
  • Site Search
  • Wikipedia
  • Google
  • Facts
  • Amazon
  • eBay
  • Outlook
  • Gmail
  • Y! Mail
  • Twitter
  • Search & Share
Powered by WordPress | Log in | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Arthemia Premium theme by Colorlabs Project
The American University Intellectual Property Brief is licensed by the staff of the American University Intellectual Property Brief under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License. IPBrief.net is hosted by Dan Rosenthal. For technical queries, contact dan@danrosenthal.org

Creative Commons License