Opinion
2011-1581 2011-1612 2011-1613
01-20-2012
TECHNOLOGY PATENTS LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. T-MOBILE (UK) LTD., T-MOBILE AUSTRIA GMBH, T-MOBILE CZECH REPUBLIC A.S., T-MOBILE DEUTSCHL AND GMBH, T-MOBILE HUNGARY CO. LTD., T-MOBILE NETHERLANDS B. v. , AND T- MOBILE SLOVENSKO A.S., Defendants-Appellees, AND ADVANCED INFO SERVICE PLC, ALSO KNOWN AS AIS, BELL MOBILITY INC., CSL NEW WORLD MOBILITY LIMITED, CHINA MOBILE PEOPLES TELEPHONE COMPANY LIMITED, NOW KNOWN AS CHINA MOBILE HONG KONG COMPANY LIMITED, KT FREETEL CO. LTD., NOW KNOWN AS KT CORPORATION, SINGAPORE TELECOM MOBILE PRIVATE LIMITED, SINGAPORE TELECOMMUNICATIONS LIMITED, ALSO KNOWN AS SINGTEL, SINGTEL OPTUS PTY LIMITED, STARHUB MOBILE PTE LTD., AND TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED, Defendants-Appellees, AND AMERICA MOVIL, S.A.B. DE C. v. , CLARO, S.A., AMX ARGENTINA, S.A., AND RADIOMOVIL DIPSA, S.A. DE C. v. , ALSO KNOWN AS TELCEL, Defendants-Appellees, AND BELGACOM MOBILE S.A., ALSO KNOWN AS PROXIMUS, MOBILKOM AUSTRIA AG, SFR, ALSO KNOWN AS SOCIETE FRANCAISE DE RADIOTELEPHONE S.A., SMARTONE MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED, TANGO S.A., VODAFONE CZECH REPUBLIC A.S., VODAFONE D2 GMBH, ALSO KNOWN AS VODAFONE GERMANY, VODAFONE ESPANA S.A., VODAFONE ESSAR LTD., VODAFONE HUNGARY MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD., VODAFONE IRELAND LTD., VODAFONE LIBERTEL B. v. , VODAFONE LIMITED, ALSO KNOWN AS VODAFONE UK, VODAFONE NETWORK PTY. LTD., VODAFONE NEW ZEALAND, VODAFONE OMNITEL N. v. , VODAFONE PORTUGAL, COMUNICACOES PESSOAIS, S.A., VODAFONE TELEKOMUNIKASYON A.S., ALSO KNOWN AS VODAFONE TURKEY, AND VODAFONE-PANAFON HELLENIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY S.A., ALSO KNOWN AS VODAFONE-PANAFON S.A., Defendants-Appellees, AND TNL PCS S.A., ALSO KNOWN AS OI, Defendant-Appellee, AND BASE N. v. /S.A., E-PLUS MOBILFUNK GMBH & CO. KG, AND KPN B. v. , Defendants-Appellees, AND BERMUDA DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS LTD., Defendant-Appellee, AND BOUYGUES TELECOM S.A., Defendant-Appellee, AND CHUNGHWA TELECOM CO. LTD., FAR EASTONE TELCOMMUNICATIONS CO. LTD., AND TAIWAN MOBILE CO., LTD., Defendants -Appellees, AND CLICKATELL (PTY) LTD., Defendant-Appellee, AND FRANCE TELECOM ESPANA S.A., ALSO-KNOWN AS ORANGE SPAIN, FRANCE TELECOM S.A., MOBISTAR N. v. , ORANGE AUSTRIA TELECOMMUNICATION GMBH, FORMERLY KNOWN AS ONE GMBH, ORANGE COMMUNICATIONS S.A., ALSO KNOWN AS ORANGE SWITZERLAND, ORANGE FRANCE S.A., ORANGE PLC, ALSO KNOWN AS ORANGE U.K., ORANGE S.A., ORANGE SLOVENSKO A.S., AND VOX MOBILE S.A., Defendants-Appellees, AND H3G S.P.A., ALSO KNOWN AS 3 ITALIA, HUTCHISON 3G AUSTRIA GMBH, HUTCHISON 3G UK LIMITED, AND HUTCHISON TELECOMMUNICATIONS (HONG KONG) LIMITED, Defendants-Appellees, AND KDDI CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee, AND PCCW MOBILE HK LIMITED, Defendant-Appellee, AND YAHOO! INC., Defendant-Appellee, AND KABUSHIKI KAISHA NTT DOCOMO AND SOFTBANK MOBILE CORP., Defendan ts-Appellees, AND M3 WIRELESS LTD., Defendant-Appellee, AND NETCOM AS, NOW KNOWN AS TELIASONERA NORGE AS AND TELIA DANMARK A/S, Defendants-Appellees, AND TMN-TELECOMUNICACOES MOVEIS NACIONAIS, S.A., Defendant-Appellee, AND 02 (GERMANY) GMBH & CO. OHG, 02 (UK) LIMITED, 02 COMMUNICATIONS (IRELAND) LTD., PEGASO PCS, S.A. DE C. v. , TELEFONICA MOVILES ARGENTINA, S.A., TELEFONICA MOVILES ESPANA, S.A.U., TELEFONICA MOVILES MEXICO, S.A. DE C. v. , TELEFONICA 02 CZECH REPUBLIC, A.S., TELEFONICA 02 EUROPE PLC, ALSO KNOWN AS 02 PLC, TELEFONICA, S.A., VIVO PARTICIPACOES, S.A., AND VIVO, S.A., Defendants-Appellees, AND PANNON GSM TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD., SONOFON A/S, SWISSCOM MOBILE A.G., TDC A/S, TDC SWITZERLAND AG, ALSO KNOWN AS SUNRISE, TELENOR MOBIL A.S., AND TOTAL ACCESS COMMUNICATION PLC, ALSO KNOWN AS DTAC, Defendants-Appellees, AND SONAECOM-SERVICOS DE COMUNICACOES, S.A., Defendant-Appellee, AND TELECOM ITALIA S.PA., TELECOM PERSONAL S.A., TIM CELULAR S.A., AND TIM PARTICIPACOES S.A., ALSO KNOWN AS TIM BRAZIL, Defendan ts-Appellees, AND TRUE MOVE COMPANY LIMITED, Defendant-Appellee, AND WIND HELLAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS S.A. AND WIND TELECOMUNICAZIONI SPA, Defendants-Appellees, AND AVEAILETISIM HIZMETLERI A.S., Defendan t-Appellee, AND T-MOBILE USA, INC., Defendant-Appellee, AND AT&T MOBILITY LLC, Defendant-Appellee, AND TELE-MOBILE COMPANY, ALSO KNOWN AS TELUS MOBILITY, Defendant-Appellee, AND ROGERS WIRELESS PARTNERSHIP, Defendant-Appellee, AND MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee, AND PALM, INC., Defendant-Appellee, AND CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, DOING BUSINESS AS VERIZON WIRELESS, Defendant-Appellee, AND HELIO, LLC AND SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees, AND LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.S.A., INC., Defendant-Appellee, AND MOTOROLA, INC., NOW KNOWN AS MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant-Appellee, AND IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED, Defendant-Appellee, AND DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG, MOBILEONE LTD., ORANGE LIMITED, ORANGE NEDERLAND N. v. , TURKCELL ILETISIM HIZMETLERI A.S., AND UPSIDE WIRELESS INC., ALSO KNOWN AS IPIPI, Defendants, AND MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC., Intervener. TECHNOLOGY PATENTS LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. T-MOBILE (UK) LTD., T-MOBILE AUSTRIA GMBH, T-MOBILE CZECH REPUBLIC A.S., T-MOBILE DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, T-MOBILE HUNGARY CO. LTD., T-MOBILE NETHERLANDS B. v. , AND T-MOBILE SLOVENSKO A.S., Defendants, AND ADVANCED INFO SERVICE PLC, ALSO KNOWN AS AIS, BELL MOBILITY INC., CSL NEW WORLD MOBILITY LIMITED, CHINA MOBILE PEOPLES TELEPHONE COMPANY LIMITED, NOW KNOWN AS CHINA MOBILE HONG KONG COMPANY LIMITED, KT FREETEL CO. LTD., NOW KNOWN AS KT CORPORATION, SINGAPORE TELECOM MOBILE PRIVATE LIMITED, SINGAPORE TELECOMMUNICATIONS LIMITED, ALSO KNOWN AS SINGTEL, SINGTEL OPTUS PTY LIMITED, STARHUB MOBILE PTE LTD., AND TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED, Defendants, AND AMERICA MOVIL, S.A.B. DE C. v. , CLARO, S.A., AMX ARGENTINA, S.A., AND RADIOMOVEL DIPSA, S.A. DE C. v. , ALSO KNOWN AS TELCEL, Defendants, AND BELGACOM MOBILE S.A., ALSO KNOWN AS PROXIMUS, MOBILKOM AUSTRIA AG, SFR, ALSO KNOWN AS SOCIETE FRANCAISE DE RADIOTELEPHONE S.A., SMARTONE MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED, TANGO S.A., VODAFONE CZECH REPUBLIC A.S., VODAFONE D2 GMBH, ALSO KNOWN AS VODAFONE GERMANY, VODAFONE ESPANA S.A., VODAFONE ESSAR LTD., VODAFONE HUNGARY MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD., VODAFONE IRELAND LTD., VODAFONE LIBERTEL B. v. , VODAFONE LIMITED, ALSO KNOWN AS VODAFONE UK, VODAFONE NETWORK PTY. LTD., VODAFONE NEW ZEALAND, VODAFONE OMNITEL N. v. , VODAFONE PORTUGAL, COMUNICACOES PESSOAIS, S.A., VODAFONE TELEKOMUNIKASYON A.S., ALSO KNOWN AS VODAFONE TURKEY, AND VODAFONE-PANAFON HELLENIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY S.A., ALSO KNOWN AS VODAFONE-PANAFON S.A., Defendants, AND TNL PCS S.A., ALSO KNOWN AS OI, Defendant, AND BASE N. v. /S.A., E-PLUS MOBILFUNK GMBH & CO. KG, AND KPN B. v. , Defendants, AND BERMUDA DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS LTD., Defendant, AND BOUYGUES TELECOM S.A., Defendant, AND CHUNGHWA TELECOM CO. LTD., FAR EASTONE TELCOMMUNICATIONS CO. LTD., AND TAIWAN MOBILE CO., LTD., Defendants, AND CLICKATELL (PTY) LTD., Defendant, AND FRANCE TELECOM ESPANA S.A., ALSO KNOWN AS ORANGE SPAIN, FRANCE TELECOM S.A., MOBISTAR N. v. , ORANGE AUSTRIA TELECOMMUNICATION GMBH, FORMERLY KNOWN AS ONE GMBH, ORANGE COMMUNICATIONS S.A., ALSO KNOWN AS ORANGE SWITZERLAND, ORANGE FRANCE S.A., ORANGE PLC, ALSO KNOWN AS ORANGE U.K., ORANGE S.A., ORANGE SLOVENSKO A.S., AND VOX MOBILE S.A., Defendants, AND H3G S.P.A., ALSO KNOWN AS 3 ITALIA, HUTCHISON 3G AUSTRIA GMBH, HUTCHISON 3G UK LIMITED, AND HUTCHISON TELECOMMUNICATIONS (HONG KONG) LIMITED, Defendants, AND KDDI CORPORATION, Defendant, AND PCCW MOBILE HK LIMITED, Defendant, AND YAHOO! INC., Defendant, AND KABUSHIKI KAISHA NTT DOCOMO AND SOFTBANK MOBILE CORP., Defendants, AND M3 WIRELESS LTD., Defendant, AND NETCOM AS, NOW KNOWN AS TELIASONERA NORGE AS AND TELIA DANMARK A/S, Defendants, AND TMN-TELECOMUNICACOES MOVEIS NACIONAIS, Si A., Defendant, AND 02 (GERMANY) GMBH & CO. OHG, 02 (UK) LIMITED, 02 COMMUNICATIONS (IRELAND) LTD., PEGASO PCS, S.A. DE C. v. , TELEFONICA MOVILES ARGENTINA, S.A., TELEFONICA MOVILES ESPANA, S.A.U., TELEFONICA MOVILES MEXICO, S.A. DE C. v. , TELEFONICA 02 CZECH REPUBLIC, A.S., TELEFONICA 02 EUROPE PLC, ALSO KNOWN AS 02 PLC, TELEFONICA, S.A., VTVO PARTICIPACOES, S.A., AND VIVO, S.A., Defendants, AND PANNON GSM TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD., SONOFON A/S, SWISSCOM MOBILE A.G., TDC A/S, TDC SWITZERLAND AG, ALSO KNOWN AS SUNRISE, TELENOR MOBIL A.S., AND TOTAL ACCESS COMMUNICATION PLC, ALSO KNOWN AS DTAC, Defendants, AND SONAECOM-SERVICOS DE COMUNICACOES, S.A., Defendant, AND TELECOM ITALIA S.PA., TELECOM PERSONAL S.A., TIM CELULAR S.A., AND TIM PARTICIPATES S.A., ALSO KNOWN AS TIM BRAZIL, Defendants, AND TRUE MOVE COMPANY LIMITED, Defendant, AND WIND HELLAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS S.A. AND WIND TELECOMUNICAZIONI SPA, Defendants, AND AVEAILETISIM HIZMETLERI A.S., Defendant, AND T-MOBILE USA, INC., Defendant-Appellant, AND AT&T MOBILITY LLC, Defendant-Appellant, AND TELE-MOBILE COMPANY, ALSO KNOWN AS TELUS MOBILITY, Defendant, AND ROGERS WIRELESS PARTNERSHIP, Defendant, AND MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant, AND PALM, INC., Defendant-Appellant, AND CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, DOING BUSINESS AS VERIZON WIRELESS, Defendant-Appellant, AND HELIO, LLC AND SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellants, AND LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.S.A., INC., Defendant-Appellant, AND MOTOROLA, INC., NOW KNOWN AS MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant-Appellant, AND IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED, Defendant, AND DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG, MOBILEONE LTD., ORANGE LIMITED, ORANGE NEDERLAND N. v. , TURKCELL ILETISIM HIZMETLERI A.S., AND UPSIDE WIRELESS INC., ALSO KNOWN AS IPIPI, Defendants, AND MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC., Intervener.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland in case no. 07-CV-3012, Judge Alex-ander Williams, Jr.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland in case no. 07-CV-3012, Judge Alexander Williams, Jr.
ON MOTION
ORDER
The Defendants-Cross Appellants move to voluntarily dismiss Cross-Appeal Nos. 2011-1612 and 2011-1613 and to conform the briefing schedule to the dismissal of the cross appeals.
Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion to dismiss cross appeal nos. 2011-1612 and 2011-1613 is granted. 2011-1612 and 2011-1613 are dismissed. The revised official caption for 2011-1581 is reflected above.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs in 2011-1612 and 2011-1613.
(3) The motion to conform the briefing schedule is granted to the extent that the appellees' principal briefs are due on February 24, 2012 and the appellant's reply brief is due on March 30, 2012.
FOR THE COURT
Jan Horbaly
Jan Horbaly
Clerk
cc: Bryant C. Boren, Jr., Esq.
Doris Johnson Hines, Esq.
Sharon A. Israel, Esq.
Matthew J. Moore, Esq.
Ian N. Feinberg, Esq.
Roderick R. McKelvie, Esq.
Louis M. Solomon, Esq.
Kevin P. Anderson, Esq.
Brian Wm. Higgins, Esq.
Stefani E. Shanberg, Esq.
Stuart J. Sinder, Esq.
James W. Dabney, Esq.
Stephen B. Kinnaird, Esq.
Brian M. Koide, Esq.
William H. Burgess, Esq.
Deanne E. Maynard, Esq.
Michael J. McKeon, Esq.
Robert C. Bertin, Esq.
George F. Pappas, Esq.
Jonathan E. Retsky, Esq.
Stephen S. Madsen, Esq.
Kevin Walsh, Esq.
Russell E. Levine, Esq.
Michael M. Markman, Esq.
Robert C. Nissen, Esq.
Edward Han, Esq.
Brian C. Riopelle, Esq.
Ramsey M. Al-Salam, Esq.
Abbe F. Fletman, Esq.
David L. Leichtman, Esq.
Andrew R. Sommer, Esq.
Joseph A. Rhoa, Esq.
Maximilian A. Grant, Esq.
Jay F. Utley, Esq.
Adam Gahtan, Esq.
Adam R. Alper, Esq.
Scott R. Matthews, Esq.
Steven Jay Young, Esq.
Victor Siber, Esq.
s21
Issued As A Mandate (as to 2011-1612, -1613 only): JAN 20 2012