MicrosoftVsMotorola_10.12.23

8/8/2019 MicrosoftVsMotorola_10.12.23

1/13

Microsoft versus

Motorola

The patentbattlefield

as of 23 Dec 10

The next 6pages show

how thisconflict hasescalated.Move by

move.

2010 by Florian Mueller http://fosspatents.blogspot.com

Twitter: @FOSSpatents

version 10.12.23.101

Motorola

Microsoft

ITC U S I n

t e r n a t

i o n a

l

T r a

d e C o m m

i s s i o n

746

762

133

352

566

054

517

910

376

S o u

t h e r n

D i s t r i c t

o f F

l o r i d a

WD

WI

W e s t e r n

D i s t r i c t

o f W

i s c o n s

i nSD

FL

9+RAND

9899

001

333

176

544

370

896

374

375

376

516

712

571

931

596

094

839

WD

WA

W e s t e r n

D i s t r i c t

o f W a s

h i n g

t o n

9

57 12

7 3

6

RAND

5

358

580

9 3

12

7

130

460

536

853

214

904

901

7
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/http://twitter.com/FOSSpatentshttp://twitter.com/FOSSpatentshttp://fosspatents.blogspot.com/


2/13



Motorola

Microsoft

ITC U S I n

t e r n a t

i o n a

l

T r a d e

C o m m

i s s i o n

746

762

133

352

566

054

517

910

376

9

WD

WA

W e s t e r n

D i s t r i c t

o f W a s

h i n g

t o n

9

Move #1

01 Oct 10

Microsoft files two

complaintsagainst

Motorola(with afederal

court and the ITC)

Move #1:Microsoft files two complaintsagainst Motorola: one in the

Western District of Washington,another with the ITC. Both relate

to the same 9 patents.

9


3/13



Motorola

Microsoft

ITC U S I n

t e r n a t

i o n a

l

T r a

d e C o m m

i s s i o n

746

762

133

352

566

054

517

910

376

WD

WA

W e s

t e r n

D i s t r i c t

o f W a s

h i n g

t o n

9

RAND

Move #2

09 Nov 10

Microsoft files

another complaint

against Motorola,

over RAND

licensing obligations

--motion to

stay first suit

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 patents

in its original infringement suit in Washingtonas in its ITC complaint, the parties jointly

move to stay the original infringement suitfor the duration of the ITC investigation.

9+RAND

9


4/13



Motorola

Microsoft

ITC U S I n

t e r n a t

i o n a

l

T r a

d e C o m m

i s s i o n

746

762

133

352

566

054

517

910

376

S o u

t h e r n

D i s t r i c t

o f F l o r i d a

WD

WI

W e s

t e r n

D i s t r i c t

o f W

i s c o n s

i nSD

FL

899

001

333

176

544

370

374

375

376

516

712

571

931

596

094

839

WD

WA

W e s

t e r n

D i s t r i c t

o f W a s

h i n g

t o n

9

7 9

7 3 6

9

RAND

Move #3

10 Nov 10

Motorolafiles

threecomplaints

against Microsoft

in twofederal courts

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).9

+RAND9


5/13


6/13



Motorola

Microsoft

ITC U S I n

t e r n a t

i o n a

l

T r a

d e C o m m

i s s i o n

746

762

133

352

566

054

517

910

376

S o u

t h e r n

D i s t r i c t

o f F l o r i d a

WD

WI

W e s

t e r n

D i s t r i c t

o f W

i s c o n s

i nSD

FL

9+RAND 8

99

001

333

176

544

370

896

374

375

376

516

712

571

931

596

094

839

WD

WA

W e s

t e r n

D i s t r i c t

o f W a s

h i n g

t o n

9

57 10 12

7 3

7 6

RAND

Move #5

23 Dec 10

Motorolafiles

a third

Wisconsincomplaint

5

358

580

109

3

12

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 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

intentions, which are, however,subject to court decisions.

On that basis, only 1 of the 6 patentsremaining in that other suit (the '516patent) would not be simultaneously

part of Motorola's ITC complaint.

9


7/13



Motorola

Microsoft

ITC U S I n

t e r n a t

i o n a

l

T r a d e

C o m m

i s s i o n

746

762

133

352

566

054

517

910

376

S o u

t h e r n

D i s t r i c t

o f F l o r i d a

WD

WI

W e s

t e r n

D i s t r i c t

o f W

i s c o n s

i nSD

FL

9+RAND

9899

001

333

176

544

370

896

374

375

376

516

712

571

931

596

094

839

WD

WA

W e s

t e r n

D i s t r i c t

o f W a s

h i n g

t o n

9

57 12

7 3

6

RAND

Move #6

23 Dec 10

Microsoft makes

counter-

claims inSouthernFlorida,

asserting 7 patents

5

358

580

9 3

12

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.

7

130

460

536

853

214

904

901

7


8/13

Referencematerial

as per 23 Dec 10

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 later discussed 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 names5,758,352 ("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 operations6,826,762 ("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 database7,644,376 ("376") Flexible architecture for notifying applications of state changes5,664,133 ("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 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 later discussed 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


9/13

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

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 W estern 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.

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 receiver 6,272,333 ("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 user 6,983,370 ("370") System for providing continuity between messaging clients and method therefor

Referencematerial

as per 23 Dec 10

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


10/13

Referencematerial

as per 23 Dec 10

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 page



'839

'899

'001

'333

'176

'544

W i n d o w

s V i s t a

W i n d o w

s 7

W i n d o w

s M o b i l e

6. 5

W i n d o w

s P h o n e

7

E x c h a n

g e S e r v e

r 2 0 0 3

E x c h a n

g e S e r v e

r 2 0 0 7

E x c h a n

g e S e r v e

r 2 0 1 0

w i t h U n i

f i e d M e

s s a g i n g

B i n g M a

p s

L i v e M e

s s e n g e r

2 0 1 1

W i n d o w

s L i v e H o

t m a i l

'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 matrix

7,024,214 ("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 timer 6,897,904 ("904") Method and system for selecting among multiple tuners6,785,901 ("901") Altering locks on programming content


11/13

Referencematerial

as per 23 Dec 10

page R-4

United States District Court for the Western District of WisconsinCase no. 3:10-cv-00699 -- 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-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.

Allegedly infringing productsFor each of the patents, Motorola accuses "the Windows 7 operating systems for personal computers".


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

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.

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 or the Xbox 360 W ireless 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 theXbox 360 Pro/Premium, Xbox 360 Elite, Xbox 360 Arcade, and Xbox 360 S."


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


12/13

Referencematerial

as per 23 Dec 10

page R-5

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


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.

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).

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 later mentioned 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 W isconsin (case no. 3:10-cv-00700).


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


13/13

Referencematerial

as per 23 Dec 10

page R-6



United States District Court for the Western District of WisconsinCase no. 3:10-cv-00826 -- complaint filed on 23 December 2010

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

Previously, Motorola filed two other complaints against Microsoft with the US District Court for the W estern District of W isconsin (casesno. 3:10-cv-00699 and 3:10-cv-00700).

Allegedly infringing productsFor the '580 and '358 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 patent, Motorola accuses "various models of the Xbox 360, including without limitation theXbox 360 Core, Xbox 360 Pro/Premium, Xbox 360 Elite, Xbox 360 Arcade, and Xbox 360 S."


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.

MicrosoftVsMotorola_10.12.23

Documents