Case Summary
**Case Summary: Microsoft Corporation v. Motorola Mobility, Inc.**
**Docket Number:** 2647733
**Court:** United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
**Filing Date:** 2010
**Background:**
The litigation arose from disputes over patent rights associated with video and wireless technology. Microsoft Corporation, a leading technology company, accused Motorola Mobility, Inc. of infringing on its patents and failing to provide a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing agreement for certain standardized technologies essential for compliance with industry standards.
**Key Issues:**
1. **Patent Infringement:** Microsoft alleged that Motorola was infringing multiple patents that covered essential technologies used in smartphones and other devices.
2. **FRAND Obligations:** The case focused on whether Motorola's licensing practices were in compliance with its FRAND commitments, given that certain Motorola patents were essential to industry standards.
3. **Damages and Licensing Rates:** The case also addressed the appropriate royalty rates for the use of these patents, specifically whether Motorola's proposed terms were excessive or discriminatory.
**Court Rulings:**
The court ruled in favor of Microsoft, granting a permanent injunction against Motorola's practices that did not comply with FRAND obligations. The court also determined the reasonable royalty rates that Motorola could charge Microsoft for the use of the disputed patents.
**Impact:**
This case set a precedent in the technology industry, clarifying the obligations of patent holders regarding FRAND licensing. The ruling emphasized the importance of fair licensing practices in fostering innovation while protecting intellectual property rights.
**Conclusion:**
Microsoft Corporation v. Motorola Mobility, Inc. highlighted critical issues surrounding patent law, FRAND obligations, and intellectual property in the context of the rapidly evolving technology sector. The outcome contributed to shaping licensing agreements and practices among tech companies.
(Note: This summary is for informational purposes and may not reflect all legal nuances or developments in the case.)