Microsoft awarded$14.5M inMotorola patentlicensing suit

Microsoft on Wednesday won another key courtroom victory in the second phase of a closely- watched battle with Motorola Mobility over patent licensing fees. A federal jury in
Seattle ordered the Google-owned handset maker to pay the software giant
$14.5 million in damages for breach of
contract for failing to
license at reasonable
terms standard essential patents
covering wireless andvideo technology used
in the Xbox game
console.

EMAIL BULK SERVICE However, the
award is half the $29
million in damage Microsoft had sought.
The case began in
2010 when Microsoft sued Motorola,
claiming that Motorola was charging
excessive royalties for
licensing on the patents.

 Motorola had
demanded Microsoft
pay annual royalties of
up to $4 billion for use of patents that are part
of the H.264 video and
802.11 wireless
standards, which are
baked into Windows
and the Xbox video
game console. Microsoft said it was
willing to pay royalties
but not at the 2.25
percent of the product
price that Motorola sought.
"This is a landmark
win for all who want
products that are affordable and work
well together,"
Microsoft deputy general counsel David
Howard said in a
statement. "The jury's
verdict is the latest in
a growing list of
decisions by regulators and courts
telling Google to stop
abusing patents."
Motorola promised to
appeal the decision.
"We're disappointed in
this outcome but look
forward to an appeal
of the new legal issues
raised in this case," a
Motorola spokesperson said in a
statement.
Microsoft's first victory in the case
came in April when a
federal judge
determined that
Microsoft should pay
Motorola Mobility unit $1.8 million a year in
royalties for use of the
patents instead of the
billions of dollars the
Google unit had
sought. The case is expected
to have broad
ramifications for
patent law. The two
companies had argued over what constitutes
fair, reasonable, and
nondiscriminatory
terms -- known to
patent lawyers as FRAND -- that patent
holders can charge for
standard-essential
patents. This case
could help establish a
framework for what
patent holders can reasonably charge for
use of their essential
technology.