1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Ninth Circuit Affirms RAND Rate-Setting Decision in Microsoft v. Motorola

Ninth Circuit Affirms RAND Rate-Setting Decision in Microsoft v. Motorola

Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.30.15

Today a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in the closely watched Motorola v. Microsoft case. The panel affirmed the Washington federal district court decision setting a reasonable and nondiscriminatory (RAND) royalty rate for Motorola's standard-essential patents (SEPs) for WiFi and video-coding technology. As explained in our prior alert on the April oral argument, the case raises important issues for all parties involved in SEP license negotiations. The Court held:

  • Jurisdiction. TheNinth Circuit affirmed its jurisdiction over the appeal, in deference to the law-of-the-case doctrine and its own earlier decision affirming jurisdiction over a contract dispute between the parties. Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 696 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2012). And it held that it, not the Federal Circuit, should hear the appeal.    
  • RAND Ruling. The Ninth Circuit upheld the district court's bench trial result, including its hypothetical agreement rate-setting approach, as well as the introduction of that result at the jury trial on breach. The Ninth Circuit held that the result of the rate-setting trial was not advisory, but rather was an "essential factual aspect of the breach-of-contract determination."
  • Verdict and Damages. The Ninth Circuit also affirmed the district court's denial of Motorola's motion for a judgment as a matter of law and the jury's subsequent verdict in Microsoft's favor. The panel affirmed Microsoft's $14.52 million in damages related to its defense against injunctive actions and the costs of moving a European distribution facility. Finally, the panel held that neither the Noerr-Pennington doctrine nor Washington state law concerning attorneys' fees foreclosed litigation cost-related damages in these circumstances.


Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 09.03.25

If You’re Not First, You’re Last: Federal Circuit’s First Review of an AIA Derivation Proceeding

Nearly a decade and a half after the passage of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), the Federal Circuit finally had its first occasion to review an appeal of a derivation proceeding that was litigated before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in Global Health Solutions LLC v. Selner. This case provides helpful guidance for patent litigators regarding the proper legal framework in a derivation proceeding and serves as a reminder that patent applications should be filed as soon as possible. As the facts of this case show, it is important that inventors retain documents and other evidence of the conception of their invention, as well as its communication to others, should there be any challenge to their invention....