【欧美判例翻译】微软诉摩托罗拉FRAND原则案二审判决书II(6)

　　[26] See Microsoft I, 696 F.3d at 877.
　　[27] Apple, Inc., 757 F.3d at 1332; see also Microsoft I, 696 F.3d at 877.
　　[28] E. R.R. Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127,136 (1961); see United Mine Workers of Am. Theme Promotions, Inc. v. News Am.Mktg. FSI, 546 F.3d 991, 1006-07 (9th Cir.2008); see also Cal. Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508, 510 (1972). v. Pennington, 381 U.S.657, 670 (1965).
　　[29] The Noerr-Pennington主义针对“虚假”诉讼创造了一个例外，规定为““不是真正地针对获得有利的政府行为的私诉”，它反对“影响政府行为的有效努力””。Prof’l Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc., 508U.S. 49, 58 (1993) (quoting Allied Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Indian Head,Inc., 486 U.S. 492, 500 n.4 (1988)).我们在本案中没有判决摩托罗拉的侵权诉讼是否合适地处于虚假诉讼例外中，因为，正如我们解释的那样， Noerr-Pennington 主义在最开始并没有适用于本案。
　　[30] See Powertech Tech., Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., 872 F. Supp. 2d 924, 931 (N.D.Cal. 2012); Spear Pharm., Inc. v. William Blair & Co., 610 F. Supp. 2d 278,288 (D. Del. 2009).
　　[31] See, e.g., Powertech Tech., 872 F. Supp. 2d at 931-32; ClearPlay, Inc. v.Nissim Corp., No. 07-81170-civ, 2011 WL 6724156, at *10 & n.10 (S.D. Fla.Dec. 21, 2011), aff’d, 496 F. App’x 963 (11th Cir. 2012).
　　[32] See Powertech Tech., 872 F. Supp. at 931; Apple, Inc. v. MotorolaMobility, Inc., 886 F. Supp. 2d 1061,1078 (W.D. Wisc. 2012).
　　[33] Apple, Inc., 886 F. Supp. 2d at 1078 (citing Powertech Tech., 872 F. Supp.2d at 930-32).
　　[34] See Letter to Commenters, Motorola Mobility LLC & Google Inc., FTCFile No. 121-0120 at 3, (July 23, 2013), ava Id. (quoting Analysis of ProposedConsent Order to Aid Public Comment, Motorola Mobility & Google Inc., FTCFile N o . 1 2 1 - 0 1 2 0 (J an . 3 , 2 0 1 3 ) , a v a i l a b l e a thttps://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2013/01/130103googlemotorolaanalysis.pdf)(alterations in original).ilable at https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2013/07/130724googlemotorolaletter.pdf.
　　[35] We do not otherwise approve or disapprove of the FTC’s analysis of itsProposed Consent Order.
　　[36] Freeman v. Lasky, Haas & Cohler, 410 F.3d 1180, 1184 (9th Cir. 2005).
　　[37]我们对联邦巡回法院的下述观点予以认同，即RAND承诺并不总是禁止禁令诉讼以实施SEP。例如，如果侵权啊人拒绝接受就RAND条款的出价，主张禁令救济会与RAND协议相一致，即使在承诺限诉诸诉讼情形下。See Apple Inc., 757 F.3d at 1331-32. 相关的问题是摩托罗拉依据它的RAND协议的善意和公平交易义务在这些情况下是否禁止主张禁令。See Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. LSI Corp., 946 F. Supp. 2d 998, 1006(N.D. Cal. 2013) （认为在就RAND条款提供许可之前，SEP所有人主张禁令救济的诉讼是“天生不一致的并且是对与被告承诺即将专利按照RAND条款许可专利的违反”） (citations omitted). 这个问题由陪审团来决定。
　　[38] See ClearPlay, Inc., 2011 WL 6724156, at *10.(作者：刘迪，来源：华政东方知识产权)