PUBLIC VERSION
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-750
`
`REMAND
`
`
`
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE DEVICES AND
`RELATED SOFTWARE
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`ORDER NO. 22:
`
`INITIAL DETERMINATION GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO
`TERMINATE THE INVESTIGATION
`
`(May 28, 2014)
`
`On May 22, 2014, complainant Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) and respondent Motorola Mobility
`
`LLC (“Motorola”) filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation.
`
`(Motion No. 750-042.)
`
`Apple and Motorola state that good cause exists to terminate the Investigation pursuant to
`
`Commission Rule 210.2l(b) because Apple and Google Inc. (“Google”), the parent company of
`
`Motorola, have reached an agreement that eliminates the dispute between Apple and Motorola
`
`that is the subject matter of this Investigation. On May 27 2014, the Commission Investigative
`
`Staff (“Staff”) filed a response to the joint motion. The Staff does not oppose the termination of
`
`this Investigation.
`
`The Commission’s Rules provide that “[a]ny party may move at any time for an order to
`
`terminate an investigation in whole or in part as to any or all respondents on the basis of a
`
`settlement, a licensing or other agreement...”
`
`19 C.F.R. § 210.21(a)(2); see also Certain
`
`Organizer Racks & Products Containing Same,
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-466, Order No. 7 at 2
`
`(February 19, 2001). Commission Rule 210.21(b)(1) fiirther specifies that in order for an
`
`investigation to be terminated as to a respondent on the basis of a licensing or other settlement
`
`agreement,
`
`the motion for termination must
`
`include:
`
`(1) copies of the licensing or other
`
`settlement agreement; (2) any supplemental agreements; and (3) a statement that there are no
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`other agreements, written or oral, express or implied, between the parties concerning the subject
`
`matter of the investigation. 19 C.F.R § 210.21(b)(1).
`
`In addition, the motion must include a
`
`public version of any licensing or other settlement agreement containing confidential business
`
`information. Id.
`
`Pursuant to Ground Rule 3.2, Apple and Motorola provided notice of this motion to the
`
`Commission Investigation Staff (“Staff”).
`
`The motion to terminate is based on a Settlement Agreementl between Apple and
`
`Motorola.
`
`(Joint Motion Memorandum.) Apple and Motorola contend that the 2013 version of
`
`Commission Rule 210.21(b) is not applicable to their joint motion because in the Commission’s
`
`“June 4, 2013 ‘Notice Clarifying Commission Rules,’ the Commission ruled that the newly-
`
`amended Rules ‘are not applicable to investigations instituted before May 20, 2013.’ Docket No.
`
`MISC-040 (June 4, 2013).”
`
`(Jt. Mot. Memo. at 2.) Apply and Motorola point out that
`
`“[b]ecause this Investigation was instituted on November 23, 2010 (see 75 Fed. Reg. 74081), the
`
`2013 Commission Rules do not apply. Rather, the Rules in existence at the time of institution
`
`govern this Investigation. See, eg., Certain Mobile Wireless Devices, Associated Software, and
`
`Components Thereofi Inv. No. 337-TA-744, Order No. 36 (May 12, 2014) (Essex, ALI) (“This
`
`investigation was instituted in 2011. The April 19, 2013 Commission Rules do not apply in this
`
`instance as those amended Rules are applicable to investigations instituted on or after May 20,
`
`20l3”). Accordingly, the Commission Rules in existence at the time the present Investigation
`
`was instituted govem for purposes of the present Motion.” (Jt. Mot. Memo. at 2.) Based on the
`
`Version of Commission Rule 210.21(b) applicable at the institution of this Investigation, a
`
`“motion for termination by settlement shall contain copies of the licensing or other settlement
`
`1 The Settlement Agreement is a Joint Cooperation Agreement between Apple and Motorola’s parent company,
`Google Inc., that eliminates the dispute between Apple and Motorola concerning the subject matter of this
`investigation.
`(Jt. Mot. Memo. at 3.)
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`agreement, any supplemental agreements, and a statement that there are no other agreements,
`
`written or oral, express or implied between the parties concerning the subject matter of the
`
`investigation.” See 37 C.F.R. § 2l0.21(b) (as amended 73 Fed. Reg. 38322 (July 7, 2008)).
`
`In accordance with the applicable Commission Rule 210.21(b), the parties filed a public
`
`version of the Settlement Agreement, attached hereto as Attachment A. The motion further
`
`states, consistent with Commission Rule 210.21 (b)(1), that there are no other agreements, written
`
`or oral, express or implied, between Apple and Motorola concerning the subject matter of this
`
`investigation.
`
`(Jt. Mot. Memo. at 4.) Citing to Certain Integrated Chipsets And Products
`
`Containing Same, Inv. No. 337—TA-428, Order No. 12 (June 20, 2000) and Certain Devices
`
`Having Elastomeric Gel and Components Thereofi Inv. No. 337-TA-732, Order No. 20 (Jan. 28,
`
`2011), Apple and Motorola contend that the “[t]ermination of this Investigation is in the public
`
`interest in that the termination will conserve public resources and will not negatively affect
`
`public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, production of like or
`
`directly competitive articles in the U.S., or U.S. consumers. (Jt. Mot. Memo. at 4.)
`
`As an initial matter, the Staff agrees with the private parties that the termination of this
`
`Investigation should be governed by the version of the Commission rules that was in effect as of
`
`the date of the institution of this investigation. (Staff Resp. at 1.) Next, the Staff submits that the
`
`Settlement Agreement indicates the parties’ intent to settle this investigation. (Staff Resp. at 4.)
`
`The Staff points out that “[t]he private parties thus seem to have complied with the procedural
`
`requirements of the Commission Rules.” (Staff Resp. at 4.) Therefore, “the Staff is of the view
`
`that the settlement agreement provides a basis on which to terminate the investigation.” (Staff
`
`Resp. at 4.)
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`“The Staff is not aware of any information that would indicate that the settlement
`
`agreement between Apple and Motorola will harm the public health and welfare, competitive
`
`conditions in the U.S. economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the
`
`United States, or U.S. consumers.” (Staff Resp. at 4.) Thus, “[t]he Staff believes, based on the
`
`available information, that terminating this investigation based on the settlement agreement will
`
`not be contrary to the public interest.” (Staff Resp. at 5.) As such, the Staff does not oppose the
`
`termination. (Staff Resp. at 5.)
`
`Based on the pleadings filed in connection with the joint motion to terminate the
`
`investigation including the exhibits attached thereto, the ALJ finds that there is no indication that
`
`termination of this Investigation in View of the settlement agreement would have an adverse
`
`impact on the public interest. The ALJ finds the termination of this Investigation will not have
`
`an adverse impact on the availability to the public of mobile devices and related software. The
`
`ALJ finds that
`
`there are significant public interest benefits in resolving litigation through
`
`settlement thereby avoiding needless litigation and conserving both public resources and private
`
`I‘CSO11I'C6S.
`
`Motion No. 750-042 is hereby GRANTED. This initial determination, along with
`
`supporting documentation, is hereby certified to the Commission.
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Pursuant
`
`to 19 C.F.R.
`
`§ 210.42(h)
`
`this
`
`initial determination shall become the
`
`determination of the Commission unless a party files a petition for review of the initial
`
`determination pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.43(a) or the Commission, pursuant to 19 C.F.R.
`
`§ 210.44, orders, on its own motion, a review of the initial determination or certain issues herein.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`Theodore R. Esseic
`
`
`
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`

`
`PPPPC VERSION
`
`ATTACHMENT A
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Hon. Theodore R. Essex
`
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of:
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-750
`REMAND
`
`
`
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE DEVICES AND
`
`RELATED SOFTWARE
`
`JOINT MOTION TO TERMINATE INVESTIGATION
`
`Complainant Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Complainant”) and Respondent Motorola Mobility
`
`LLC (“Motorola” or “Respondent”) move pursuant to Commission Rule 210.2l(b) to terminate
`
`this Investigation for good cause, in view of an agreement between Apple and Google Inc.
`
`(“Google”), the parent company of Motorola, that eliminates the dispute between Apple and
`
`Motorola that is the subject matter of this Investigation. The memorandum of points and
`authorities submitted in support ofthis motion sets forth the reasons why this termination should
`
`be permitted.
`
`In compliance with Commission Rule 210.2l(b), Apple and Motorola state that there are
`
`no other agreements, written or oral, express or implied between Apple and Motorola concerning
`
`the subject matter of the investigation.
`
`In compliance with Commission Rule 2l0.50(b)(2), Apple and Motorola state that the
`
`termination of this Investigation is in the public interest in that the termination does not affect the
`
`public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, the production of like or
`
`directly competitive articles in the United States, or U.S. consumers.
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`In compliance with Commission Rule 210.21(b), a complete, confidential version of the
`
`agreement between Apple and Google is attached hereto as Confidential Exhibit 1, and a
`
`redacted version, with confidential business information removed, is attached as Exhibit 2.
`
`Pursuant to Ground Rule 3.2, Apple and Motorola provided notice of this motion to the
`
`Commission Investigative Staff (“Staff”) two business days before filing. The Staff indicated
`
`that it will take a position after reviewing the motion papers.
`
`Accordingly, Apple and Motorola jointly request termination of this Investigation
`
`pursuant to Commission Rule 210.21(b).
`
`Dated: May 22, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Brian E. Ferguson
`Brian E. Ferguson
`Robert T. Vlasis
`
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`
`1300 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: +1 202 682 7000
`Facsimile: +1 202 857 0940
`
`Anne M. Cappella
`Jill J. Schmidt
`
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`201 Redwood Shores Parkway
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Tel: (650) 802-3000
`
`/s/ Charles F. Schill
`
`Charles F. Schill
`
`Steptoe & Johnson LLP
`1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036
`Tel. (202) 429-8162
`
`Paul F. Brinkman
`
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
`777 6th Street, NW
`1 1th Floor
`
`Washington, D.C. 20001
`Tel. (202) 538-8000 Direct
`
`Charles K. Verhoeven
`
`Attorneysfor Complainant Apple Inc.
`
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Tel. (415) 875-6600
`
`Edward J. DeFranco
`
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`
`New York, NY 10010
`Tel. (212) 849-7000
`
`David A. Nelson
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
`500 West Madison Street, Ste. 2450
`
`Chicago, IL 60661
`Tel. (312) 705-7400
`
`Attorneys for Respondent Motorola Mobility LLC
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Hon. Theodore R. Essex
`
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-750
`
`
`
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE DEVICES AND
`
`In the Matter of:
`
`RELATED SOFTWARE
`
`
`REMAND
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION TO TERMINATE
`
`THE INVESTIGATION
`
`Complainant Apple Inc. (‘‘Apple’’ or “Complainant”) and Respondent Motorola Mobility
`
`LLC (“Respondent” or “Motorola”) jointly submit this Memorandum of Points and Authorities
`
`in support of their joint motion to terminate the Investigation pursuant to Commission Rule
`
`210..21(b). The Commission Investigative Staff (“Staff”) has indicated it will take a position
`
`after reviewing these papers.
`
`Apple and Motorola note that a threshold issue concerning the instant Motion is what
`
`Version of Commission Rule 2lO.21(b) applies. Specifically, the Commission Rules were
`
`amended effective April 19, 2013 (see 78 Fed. Reg. 23474). New Rule 2lO.2l(b), as amended
`
`requires, in part, that the parties to a settlement agreement submit “copies of the licensing or
`
`other settlement agreements, any supplemental agreements, [and] any documents referenced in
`
`the motion or attached agreements. . ..” See Commission Rule 210.2l(b) (as amended April 19,
`
`2013) (emphasis added). Apple and Motorola submit, however, that the 2013 version of
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Commission Rule 2l0.2l(b) is not applicable to the current Motion. In its June 4, 2013 “Notice
`
`Clarifying Commission Rules,” the Commission ruled that the newly-amended Rules “are not
`
`applicable to investigations instituted before May 20, 2013.” Docket No. MISC-040 (June 4,
`
`2013). Because the instant Investigation was instituted on November 23, 2010 (see 75 Fed. Reg.
`
`74081), the 2013 Commission Rules do not apply. Rather, the Rules in existence at the time of
`
`institution govern this Investigation. See, e.g., Certain Mobile Wireless Devices, Associated
`
`Software, and Components Thereoj’, Inv. No. 337-TA-744, Order No. 36 (May 12, 2014) (Essex,
`
`ALJ) (“This investigation was instituted in 2011. The April 19, 2013 Commission Rules do not
`
`apply in this instance as those amended Rules are applicable to investigations instituted on or
`
`after May 20, 2013”). Accordingly, the Commission Rules in existence at the time the present
`
`Investigation was instituted govern for purposes of the present Motion.
`
`According to the applicable version of Commission Rule 2l0.2l(b), an investigation may
`
`be terminated on the basis of a licensing or settlement agreement. The Rule states in relevant
`
`part that a “motion for termination by settlement shall contain copies of the licensing or other
`
`settlement agreement, any supplemental agreements, and a statement that there are no other
`
`agreements, written or oral, express or implied between the parties concerning the subject matter
`
`of the investigation.” See 37 C.F.R. § 210.21(b) (as amended 73 Fed. Reg. 38322 (July 7,
`
`2008)). Rule 210.2l(b) also provides that if that if the agreement contains confidential business
`
`information, “a copy of the agreement with such information deleted shall accompany the
`
`motion.” Notably, this former, yet still applicable version of the Rule does not contain the new,
`
`additional requirement to submit “any documents referenced in the motion or attached
`
`agreements.”
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Pursuant to the above-identified Commission Rule, Apple and Motorola move to
`
`terminate this Investigation and state that good cause exists for granting this motion. Apple and
`
`Motorola’s parent company, Google Inc. (“Google”) have entered into a Joint Cooperation
`
`Agreement (“ICA”) that eliminates the dispute between Apple and Motorola concerning the
`
`subject matter of this Investigation. Pursuant to Commission Rule 2l0.21(b) a complete and
`
`confidential copy of the JCA is attached as Confidential Exhibit 1. Further, and in compliance
`
`with Commission Rule 2l0.21(b), a redacted version of the JCA, with confidential business
`
`information removed, is attached as Exhibit 2.1 Thus, there is no remaining dispute between
`
`Apple and Motorola with respect to this Investigation and good cause therefore exists for
`
`terminating this Investigation in its entirety.
`
`It is in the interest of the public and administrative economy to grant this motion.
`
`Termination based on a settlement agreement, which preserves resources for both the
`
`Commission and the private parties, is routinely granted. See, e.g., Certain Equipmentfor
`
`Telecommunications or Data Communications Networks, Including Routers, Switches, & Hubs,
`
`& Components Thereofi Inv. No. 337-TA—574, Order No. 27 at 4 (May 24, 2007); Certain Safety
`
`Eyewear & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-433, Order No. 37 at 2 (Nov. 3, 2000);
`
`Certain Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory Devices, Microprocessors, & Products
`
`Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-431, Order No. 11 at 2 (July 13, 2000); Certain Integrated
`
`1
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Circuit Chipsets & Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-428, Order No. 16 at 5 (Aug.
`
`22, 2000). This is equally true if the investigation is in the remand stage, such as the present one.
`
`See, e.g., Certain Variable Speed Wind Turbines and Components Tliereofi Inv. No. 337-TA-641
`
`(Remand), Comm’n Notice (April 18, 2014); Certain Personal Computers, Monitors, and
`
`Components Ilzereofi Inv. No. 337-TA-519, Comm’n Notice (July 19, 2006) (“the Commission
`
`has determined that termination of the investigation would not have an adverse impact on the
`
`public interest and that termination based on a settlement agreement is generally in the public
`
`interest”).
`
`There are no procedural impediments to granting this motion. Apple and Motorola have
`
`confirmed, in compliance with Commission Rule 210.2l(b), that there are no other agreements,
`
`written or oral, express or implied between Apple and Motorola regarding the subject matter of
`
`this investigation. Termination of this Investigation is in the public interest in that the
`
`termination will conserve public resources and will not negatively affect public health and
`
`welfare, competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, production of like or directly competitive
`
`articles in the U.S., or U.S. consumers. See, e.g., Certain Integrated Chipsets And Products
`Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-428, Order No. 12 (June 20, 2000); Certain Devices Having
`
`Elastomeric Gel and Components Thereofi Inv. No. 337-TA-732, Order No. 20 (Jan. 28, 2011)
`
`(“public policy supports termination in order to conserve public and private resources”).
`
`* * *
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Apple and Motorola jointly request that this motion be
`
`granted, and that this Investigation be terminated pursuant to Commission Rule 21 0.2 1 (b).
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Dated: May 22, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Brian E. Ferguson
`Brian E. Ferguson
`Robert T. Vlasis
`
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`1300 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: +1 202 682 7000
`Facsimile: +1 202 857 0940
`
`Anne M. Cappella
`Jill J. Schmidt
`
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`201 Redwood Shores Parkway
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Tel: (650) 802-3000
`
`Attorneys for Complainant Apple Inc.
`
`/s/ Charles F. Schill
`
`Charles F. Schill
`
`Steptoe & Johnson LLP
`1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036
`Tel. (202) 429-8162
`
`Paul F. Biinkman
`
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
`777 6th Street, NW
`11th Floor
`
`Washington, D.C. 20001
`Tel. (202) 538-8000 Direct
`
`Charles K. Verhoeven
`
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Tel. (415) 875-6600
`
`Edward J. DeFranco
`
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`
`New York, NY 10010
`Tel. (212) 849-7000
`
`David A. Nelson
`
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
`500 West Madison Street, Ste. 2450
`Chicago, IL 60661
`Tel. (312) 705-7400
`
`Attorneys for Respondent Motorola Mobility LLC
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was served on Monday, May 22, 2014 as indicated,
`on the following:
`
`Via EDIS and Hand-Delivery (2 Copies)
`
`Via E-mail and Hand-Delivery
`
`The Honorable Lisa R. Barton
`
`Lisa Kattan
`
`Acting Secretary
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`
`500 E Street SW, Room ll2-A
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`
`500 E Street, S.W., Room 401
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`
`lisa.kattan@usitc.gov
`
`Via E-mail and Hand Delivery (2 Copies)
`
`Via E—mail Hand-Delivery
`
`The Honorable Theodore R. Essex
`Office of the Administrative Law Judge
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W., Room 317
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`
`Charles F, Schjll
`steptoe & Johnson LLP
`13 30 Connecticut Avenue, N_w_
`Wasmngtona D_C_ 20036
`
`tamara.fole
`
`usitc. ov
`
`cschill@steptoe.com
`
`Paul F. Brinkman
`
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
`777 6th Street, NW
`1 1th Floor
`
`Washington, D.C. 20001
`Tel. (202) 538-8000 Direct
`
`paulbrinkman@_quinnemanue1.corn
`
`/s/ Michael P. Scanlan
`
`Michael P. Scanlan
`
`Paralegal
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`REMOVED FROM PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`EXECUTION COPY
`
`Joint Cooperation Agreement (JCA)
`
`This JCA bezween Apple and Google includes three penis:
`
`I
`
`(ii) a litigation dismissal
`
`and
`
`Term & Termination
`
`10~year initial term effective upon date of signature by both parties with automatic renewals for
`additional. successive 10-year terms.
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`EXECUTION COPY
`
`(2) LITIGATION NOTICE
`
`Existing Litigation and Disputes
`
`Dismiss without prejudice alt pending contract and patent-reiated litigation, investigations.
`appeals, pre- and post-grant challenges. including oppositions. nullity proceedings,
`cancellations and other patent office examinations between the parties and their affiliates (to the
`extent they can be dismissed without prejudice). including in the case of Google all actions
`instigated against Apple by MMI and in the case of Apple ail actions instigated against MMI by
`Apple.
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`EXECUTION COPY
`
`Each party will bear the cost of its own litigation expenses unless a cost reimbursement has
`already taken piece in which case any money paid shall not be paid back. All court fees accrued
`that have not already been paid shall be shared equally by the parties. The parties wiii provide
`any consent necessary to secure the release of any bonds related to the proceedings.
`
`(4) MISCELLANEOUS
`
`All references to “we”. “us” and "our" herein are understood to mean both parties and their
`Affiliates. and references to Apple, Google, MM and a party are understood to mean the
`applicable party along with its Aftilistes.
`
`We each agree to cause our Atfiliates to comply with the terms and conditions of this
`JCA. "Affiliate" as used herein means. with respect to any corporation or other entity, any other
`corporation or entity that now or hereafter directly or indirectly controls, is controlled by, or is
`under common control with such tirst corporation or other entity. For purposes of the foregoing.
`“control” means ownership of more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting securities of
`a corporation or other entity or the possession directly or indirectly of the power to direct or
`cause the direction of the management or policies of a corporation or other entity whether
`through the ownership of voting securities. by contract or otherwise.
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`EXECUTION COPY
`
`This JCA shafl be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of
`California without regard to principias of cenflicts of law.
`
`Agreed:
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`
`By:
`
`(signature)
`
`Printed Name:
`Title:
`
`’~:"’§"{")£Z
`C 55>
`
`1&4 5‘
`
`APPLE w
`
`By:
`
`
`
`~
`
`-
`
`{M
`Printed Name:
`Title: C150
`
`Date:
`
`353‘
`
`3*5*’*"f'
`
`Date: MAE lg} Z0”
`
`

`
`CERTAIN MOBILE DEVICES AND RELATED
`
`Inv. N0. 337-TA-750
`
`SOFTWARE
`
`REMAND
`
`PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached ORDER 22 has been served by hand
`upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Lisa M. Kattan, Esq., and the following parties as
`
`indicated, on May
`2014.
`
`M22
`
`Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`
`500 E Street, SW, Room 112
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`On Behalf of Comglainant Aggle Inc.:
`
`Brian E. Ferguson, Esq.
`WEIL, GOTSHALL & MANGES LLP
`1300 Eye Street, NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`On behalf of Resgondent Motorola Mobilig, Inc.:
`
`Charles F. Schill, Esq.
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
`1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`
`) Via Hand Delivery
`(
`(X) Via Express Delivery
`(
`) Via First Class Mail
`(
`) Other:
`
`) Via Hand Delivery
`(
`(X) Via Express Delivery
`(
`) Via First Class Mail
`(
`) Other: