Microsoft 2013 Annual Report Download - page 73

court’s injunction orders to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the orders in September 2012. The
Seattle District Court held a trial in November 2012 to determine the RAND royalty for Motorola’s H.264 and 802.11
patents. In December 2012, the Seattle District Court ruled that Motorola could not obtain injunctive relief in connection
with any of its claims for infringement of its H.264 and 802.11 patents. In April 2013, the court set per unit royalties for
Motorola’s H.264 and 802.11 patents, which resulted in an immaterial Microsoft liability. Trial of Microsoft’s breach of
contract claim is set for August 26, 2013.
Cases filed by Motorola in Wisconsin, California, and Florida, with the exception of one currently stayed case in Wisconsin
(a companion case to Motorola’s ITC action), have been transferred to the U.S District Court in Seattle. Motorola and
Microsoft both seek damages as well as injunctive relief. No trial dates have been set in any of the transferred cases, and
the court has stayed these cases on agreement of the parties.
• In the transferred cases, Motorola asserts 15 patents are infringed by many Microsoft products including
Windows Mobile 6.5 and Windows Phone 7, Windows Marketplace, Silverlight, Windows Vista and Windows 7,
Exchange Server 2003 and later, Exchange ActiveSync, Windows Live Messenger, Lync Server 2010, Outlook
2010, Office 365, SQL Server, Internet Explorer 9, Xbox, and Kinect.
• In the Motorola action originally filed in California, Motorola asserts that Microsoft violated antitrust laws in
connection with Microsoft’s assertion of patents against Motorola that Microsoft has agreed to license to certain
qualifying entities on RAND terms and conditions.
• In counterclaims in the patent actions brought by Motorola, Microsoft asserts 14 patents are infringed by
Motorola Android devices and certain Motorola digital video recorders.
Germany
In July 2011, Motorola filed patent infringement actions in Germany against Microsoft and several Microsoft subsidiaries.
• Two of the patents are asserted by Motorola to be essential to implementation of the H.264 video standard, and
Motorola alleges that H.264 capable products including Xbox 360, Windows 7, Media Player, and Internet
Explorer infringe those patents. Motorola seeks damages and an injunction. In May 2012, the court issued an
injunction relating to all H.264 capable Microsoft products in Germany. However, due to orders in the separate
litigation pending in Seattle, Washington described above, Motorola is enjoined from taking steps to enforce the
German injunction. Damages would be determined in later proceedings. Microsoft has appealed the rulings of
the first instance court.
• Motorola asserts one of the patents covers certain syncing functionality in the ActiveSync protocol employed by
Windows Phone 7, Outlook Mobile, Hotmail Mobile, Exchange Online, Exchange Server, and Hotmail Server.
Motorola seeks damages and an injunction. In April 2013, the court stayed the case pending the outcome of
parallel proceedings in which Microsoft is seeking to invalidate the patent.
• Should an injunction order be issued and enforced by Motorola, Microsoft may be able to mitigate the adverse
impact by altering its products to avoid Motorola’s infringement claims.
In lawsuits Microsoft filed in Germany in September, October, and December 2011 and in April 2012, Microsoft asserts
Motorola Android devices infringe Microsoft patents. Microsoft seeks damages and an injunction. In May, July, and
September 2012, courts in Germany issued injunctions on three patents against Motorola Android devices and in May and
July ruled against Microsoft on two patents. Microsoft is taking steps to enforce the injunctions. Damages will be
determined in later proceedings. Each party has appealed or is expected to appeal the rulings against it. Motorola is also
seeking to invalidate Microsoft’s patents in parallel court proceedings.
United Kingdom
In December 2011, Microsoft filed an action against Motorola in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents
Court, in London, England, seeking to revoke the UK part of the European patent asserted by Motorola in Germany
against the ActiveSync protocol. In February 2012, Motorola counterclaimed alleging infringement of the patent and