Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 27K views

    Apple-Google Agreement To Dismiss

    Uploaded by

    Mikey Campbell
    The parties in the case of Apple Inc. and NeXT Software, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. and Motorola Mobility, Inc. have jointly moved to dismiss the appeal without prejudice. They agree that each party will bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. The parties request that the court issue the mandate so that they can proceed to dismiss the litigation in the district court. Counsel for both plaintiffs and defendants have signed the motion.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Apple-Google Agreement To Dismiss

    Uploaded by

    Mikey Campbell
    27K views11 pages
    The parties in the case of Apple Inc. and NeXT Software, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. and Motorola Mobility, Inc. have jointly moved to dismiss the appeal without prejudice. They agree that each party will bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. The parties request that the court issue the mandate so that they can proceed to dismiss the litigation in the district court. Counsel for both plaintiffs and defendants have signed the motion.

    Original Description:

    Apple-Google Agreement to Dismiss

    Original Title

    Apple-Google Agreement to Dismiss

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The parties in the case of Apple Inc. and NeXT Software, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. and Motorola Mobility, Inc. have jointly moved to dismiss the appeal without prejudice. They agree that each party will bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. The parties request that the court issue the mandate so that they can proceed to dismiss the litigation in the district court. Counsel for both plaintiffs and defendants have signed the motion.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    27K views11 pages

    Apple-Google Agreement To Dismiss

    Uploaded by

    Mikey Campbell
    The parties in the case of Apple Inc. and NeXT Software, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. and Motorola Mobility, Inc. have jointly moved to dismiss the appeal without prejudice. They agree that each party will bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. The parties request that the court issue the mandate so that they can proceed to dismiss the litigation in the district court. Counsel for both plaintiffs and defendants have signed the motion.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 11
    At a glance
    Powered by AI
    The case involves a dispute between Apple and Motorola regarding patents. The parties have agreed to dismiss the litigation without prejudice and are requesting the court to issue the mandate and allow them to proceed to dismiss the case in district court.

    The case is a patent dispute between Apple and Motorola (now known as Motorola Solutions and Motorola Mobility).

    The parties are requesting the court to issue the mandate in the appeals so that they can proceed to dismiss the litigation without prejudice in district court.

    Case No.

    2012-1548, -1549
    _____________________________________________________
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
    )
    APPLE INC., )
    and NeXT Software, Inc. )
    (formerly known as NeXT )
    Computer, Inc.) )
    Plaintiffs-Appellants, )
    )
    v. )
    )
    MOTOROLA, INC. )
    (now known as Motorola )
    Solutions, Inc.) and )
    Motorola Mobility, Inc. )
    Defendants-Cross Appellants. )
    )
    JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL
    Whereas all parties agree that it would be appropriate to dismiss
    this litigation without prejudice, and whereas none of the parties intend,
    therefore, to file a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc or for writ
    of certiorari, Plaintiffs-Appellants Apple Inc. and NeXT Software, Inc.
    (formerly known as NeXT Computer, Inc.), together with Defendants-
    Cross Appellants Motorola, Inc. (now known as Motorola Solutions, Inc.)
    Case: 12-1548 Document: 217 Page: 1 Filed: 05/16/2014
    2
    and Motorola Mobility, Inc. (now known as Motorola Mobility LLC),
    respectfully move the Court to issue the mandate in these consolidated
    appeals, so that the parties can proceed to the district court to dismiss
    the litigation without prejudice. The parties further agree that each
    party will bear its own costs and attorneys' fees.
    Case: 12-1548 Document: 217 Page: 2 Filed: 05/16/2014
    3
    Dated: May 16, 2014 Respectfully submitted,
    /s/ David A. Nelson
    Amanda Scott Williamson
    Stephen A. Swedlow
    Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
    Sullivan, LLP
    500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2450
    Chicago, IL 60661
    Kathleen M. Sullivan
    Edward J. DeFranco
    Raymond N. Nimrod
    Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
    Sullivan, LLP
    51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
    New York, NY 10010-1601
    Charles Kramer Verhoeven
    Brian Cosmo Cannon
    Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
    Sullivan, LLP
    50 California Street
    San Francisco, CA 94111
    Counsel for Defendants-Cross
    Appellants Motorola, Inc. and
    Motorola Mobility, Inc.
    /S/ E. Joshua Rosenkranz
    Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
    51 West 52nd Street
    New York, NY 10019
    (212) 506-5000
    Mark S. Davies
    Rachel M. McKenzie
    T. Vann Pearce, Jr.
    Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
    1152 15th Street, N.W.
    Washington, DC 20005
    Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants
    * Counsel for Defendants-Cross Appellants consented to the use of
    their electronic signature herein.
    Case: 12-1548 Document: 217 Page: 3 Filed: 05/16/2014
    4
    CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
    Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants certify the following:
    1. We represent Apple Inc. and NeXT Software, Inc.
    2. The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in
    the caption is not the real party in interest) represented: Not applicable.
    3. All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that
    own 10 percent or more of the stock of the party or amicus curiae
    represented: None. Apple Inc. has no parent corporation. According to
    Apples Proxy Statement filed with the United States Securities and
    Exchange Commission in January 2014, there are no beneficial owners
    that hold more than 10% of Apples outstanding common stock. NeXT
    Software, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Apple Inc.
    4. The names of all law firms and the partners or associates
    that appeared for party or amicus now represented in trial court or
    agency or are expected to appear in this court are:
    Case: 12-1548 Document: 217 Page: 4 Filed: 05/16/2014
    5
    ORRICK, HERRINGTON SUTCLIFFE LLP:
    E. Joshua Rosenkranz
    Mark S. Davies
    Rachel M. McKenzie
    T. Vann Pearce, Jr.
    Alyssa Caridis
    Kelly M. Daley
    Christopher J. Higgins
    Katherine M. Kopp
    Daniel Habib
    Michael Spillner
    WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP:
    Jonathan Bloom
    Anne M. Cappella
    Brian C. Chang
    Justin L. Constant
    Mark G. Davis
    David M. DesRosier
    Brian E. Ferguson
    Nathan A. Greenblatt
    Jacqueline T. Harlow
    Jill J. Ho
    Edward S. Jou
    Kevin S. Kudlac
    Christopher T. Marando
    Rodney R. Miller
    Julian Moore
    Danielle S. Rosenthal
    Stephen K. Shahida
    Rachelle H. Thompson
    Robert T. Vlasis
    Robert P. Watkins, III
    Elizabeth S. Weiswasser
    Case: 12-1548 Document: 217 Page: 5 Filed: 05/16/2014
    6
    COVINGTON & BURLING LLP:
    Elena M. DiMuzio
    Christopher K. Eppich
    Samuel F. Ernst
    Robert D. Fram
    Danielle L. Goldstein
    Christine Saunders Haskett
    Robert T. Haslam
    Matthew J. Hawkinson
    Richard A. Lopez
    Anupam Sharma
    Ranganath Sudarshan
    Winslow B. Taub
    TENSEGRITY LAW GROUP LLP:
    Steven S. Cherensky
    Paul T. Ehrlich
    Monica M. Eno
    Robert L. Gerrity
    Azra Hadzimehmedovic
    Matthew D. Powers
    Stefani C. Smith
    WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP:
    Joseph Mueller
    GODFREY & KAHN, S.C.:
    James D. Peterson
    Bryan J. Cahill
    BOARDMAN, SUHR, CURRY & FIELD LLP:
    Catherine Cetrangolo
    BRIDGES & MAVRAKAKIS LLP:
    James A. Shimota
    Lawrence Lien
    Michael Pieja
    Case: 12-1548 Document: 217 Page: 6 Filed: 05/16/2014
    7
    SCHIFF HARDIN LLP:
    Stacie R. Hartman
    Date: May 16, 2014 Respectfully submitted,
    ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
    By: /s/ E. Joshua Rosenkranz
    E. Joshua Rosenkranz
    Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants
    Case: 12-1548 Document: 217 Page: 7 Filed: 05/16/2014
    8
    CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
    Counsel for Appellees-Cross-Appellants Motorola Mobility
    LLC and Motorola Solutions, Inc. certifies the following:
    1. The full name of every party or amicus represented by me is:
    Motorola Mobility LLC, formerly known as Motorola Mobility,
    Inc. On June 22, 2012, Appellant Motorola Mobility, Inc. was
    converted into a Delaware limited liability company, changing its
    name to Motorola Mobility LLC.
    Motorola Solutions, Inc., formerly known as Motorola, Inc., is
    incorporated under the laws of Delaware and has its principal
    place of business in Schaumburg, Illinois.
    2. The name of the real parties in interest represented by me is:
    None.
    3. All parent corporation and any publicly held companies
    that own 10 percent or more of the stock of the party or amicus curiae
    represented by me are:
    Motorola Mobility LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Google
    Inc., a publicly held company.
    The stock of Motorola Solutions, Inc. is publicly traded. No
    publicly held entity owns 10 percent or more of the stock of
    Motorola Solutions, Inc. Motorola Solutions, Inc. has no parent
    corporation.
    Case: 12-1548 Document: 217 Page: 8 Filed: 05/16/2014
    9
    4. The names of all law firms and the partners or
    associates that appeared for the party or amicus now represented by me
    in the trial court or agency or are expected to appear in this Court are:
    QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP:
    Jennifer Anne Bauer
    Cheryl A. Berry
    Jeffrey Neil Boozell
    Meghan Bordonaro
    Linda J. Brewer
    Brian C. Cannon
    Thomas W. Cushing
    Edward J. Defranco
    David Eiseman
    David M. Elihu
    Charles P. Emanuel
    Richard W. Erwine
    Kevin Johnson
    Rebecca Frihart Kennedy
    David A. Nelson
    Raymond N. Nimrod
    GrahamMorris
    Pechenik David
    Andrew Perlson
    Matthew Robson
    Carlos A. Rodriguez
    Alexander Rudis
    David L. Shaul
    Amy Lynn Signaigo
    Kevin A. Smith
    Robert WilliamStone
    Kathleen M. Sullivan
    Stephen A. Swedlow
    Matthrew A. Traupman
    Case: 12-1548 Document: 217 Page: 9 Filed: 05/16/2014
    10
    Charles Kramer Verhoeven
    Amanda S. Williamson
    Thomas R. Watson
    REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN, S.C.
    Scott W. Hansen
    Lisa Nester Kass
    Lynn M. Stathas
    SOBEL & FELLER LLP
    Mitchell S. Feller
    Dated: May 16, 2014 Respectfully submitted,
    QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
    SULLIVAN, LLP
    By: /s/Kathleen M. Sullivan
    Kathleen M. Sullivan
    Counsel for Defendants-Cross
    Appellants
    Case: 12-1548 Document: 217 Page: 10 Filed: 05/16/2014
    11
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I hereby certify that on this 16th day of May, 2014, I caused the
    foregoing document to be electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court
    using CM/ECF, which will automatically send notification of such filing
    to all registered users.
    By: /s/ E. Joshua Rosenkranz
    ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
    51 West 52nd Street
    New York, N.Y. 10019
    Telephone: (212) 506-5000
    Facsimile: (212) 506-5151
    Email: [email protected]
    Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants
    Case: 12-1548 Document: 217 Page: 11 Filed: 05/16/2014

    You might also like