Published: 12/11/08
This decision denied a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s breach of contract and antitrust claims against Motorola based on the claim that Motorola refused to negotiate FRAND licenses in good faith. The court rejected Motorola’s claim that it lacks monopoly power based on its SEPs, holding that the promulgation of a standard enhances the value of a patent significantly. The court also found that, for purposes of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, RIM had alleged an “injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent.” Relying on the Broadcom v. Qualcomm third circuit decision in 2007, the court held that “FRAND commitments are intended as a ‘bulwark’ against the unlawful accumulation of monopoly power that antitrust laws are designed to prevent” and that “Motorola’s efforts to side-step this bulwark, as alleged in this case, are harmful not only to RIM but to competition in general.”