Hytera Amends Complaint Against Motorola, Removes Several Claims
Tuesday, November 14, 2017 | Comments

Hytera Communications amended its original complaint in its patent infringement lawsuit against Motorola Solutions to remove claims of indirect and willful infringement.

Hytera first filed its lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in August, alleging that Motorola had infringed its U.S. Patent No. 9,183,846, which describes a method for adjusting sound volume in response to background or ambient noise. In addition to direct infringement, Hytera claimed that Motorola had indirectly infringed the patent through contributory infringement and inducement. The complaint also alleged willful infringement, which can act as an enhancer for potential damages.

Hytera’s amended complaint follows a motion filed by Motorola that asked the court to dismiss the portions of the case related to Hytera’s claims of indirect and willful infringement. Motorola argued in its motion to dismiss that Hytera had not provided any facts to support its claims of indirect infringement.

The amended complaint likely renders Motorola’s motion for partial dismissal moot because it removes the claims Motorola sought to dismiss, said Bernard Chao, an associate professor with the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. Judge Donald Nugent has not released any order related to the motion but did release an order scheduling a case management conference for Dec. 19.

Nugent’s order also prohibits either party from filing a summary judgment prior to the close of discovery without the court’s permission. The order also requires the parties to make all summary judgment arguments in a single motion unless they obtain the consent of the court to file multiple summary judgment motions. In a summary judgment, a court decides a case on all or some of the issues involved without the full trial process.

In addition to amending the complaint, Hytera also responded to Motorola’s defenses that it raised in a response to Hytera’s original complaint. In that response, Motorola argued that Hytera’s ‘846 patent is invalid because patents that describe similar technology were submitted and published prior to that patent.

In its response, Hytera denied Motorola’s defenses and asked Nugent to deny Motorola’s requests for relief.

“Motorola’s counterclaims fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,” Hytera’s response said. “Motorola’s counterclaims do not meet the pleading requirements of Civil Federal Procedure. The counterclaims fail to properly allege noninfringement and invalidity.”

Would you like to comment on this story? Find our comments system below.



 
 
Post a comment
Name: *
Email: *
Title: *
Comment: *
 

Comments
On 11/22/17, Manuel A Alvarez said:
Motorola did not file a complaint until Hytera bought Sepura, giving Hytera a full entrance to the European markets.
Today Motorola have more lawyers than engineers and is a U.S. company that does not build anything in the U.S. but has the biggest chuck of contracts in Project 25 (P25). So is it really a U.S. company?

Site Navigation

Close