MicroUnity v. Acer, et al., 2:10cv91 (3/26/13)
Judge: Roy Payne
Holding: Motion For Reconsideration Of Order Denying Motion To Sever Certain Claims DENIED
Qualcomm asserted that the Court’s prior ruling denying its prior motion to sever must be reconsidered in light of In re EMC Corp., 677 F.3d 1351(Fed. Cir. 2012). Judge Payne agreed that his ruling did not use the precise analysis in In re EMC, which was issued seven months after his ruling, but noted that the question was not how the Court’s ruling compared to the analysis articulated in EMC, but whether Qualcomm had shown that the use of that new analysis would lead to a different result.
After reviewing the analysis under the new caselaw, the Court concluded that unlike the court in the EMC case, “a ‘logical relationship’ exists between all of the accused products and services because infringement for all products and services will involve to some extent their implementation and use of an ARM architecture and instruction set.” Accordingly, he found that his earlier ruling would still be the same even under the “more focused and precise standard” set forth in In re EMC.