From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...
Druckzentrum Harry Jung GmbH & Co. v. Motorola Mobility LLC
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
774 F.3d 410 (2014)
Druckzentrum Harry Jung GmbH & Co (Druckzentrum) (plaintiff) was a German printer. For more than a decade, Druckzentrum printed user manuals for cell phones made by Motorola Mobility LLC (Motorola) (defendant). The user manuals were packaged with cell phones that Motorola sold in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia, a marketing area known as the EMEA region. In 2007, Motorola introduced a new purchasing program that required its vendors to bid for contracts. Druckzentrum won a contract to print Motorola’s manuals for the EMEA region. Motorola sent over a purchasing contract that: (1) gave Druckzentrum 2% of Motorola’s world-wide printing business, (2) gave Motorola several possible grounds for terminating the contract, including Motorola’s own convenience, and (3) contained an integration clause stating that the contract represented the parties’ entire understanding and superseded any prior discussions or agreements. Druckzentrum countersigned the contract. However, Motorola then suffered a large drop in cell-phone sales. As a result, less than nine months into the contract, Motorola decided to move all its printing operations to China where the phones were manufactured. Without Motorola’s business, Druckzentrum went bankrupt. Druckzentrum sued Motorola, alleging that the purchasing contract gave Druckzentrum an exclusive right to print Motorola’s cell-phone materials for the EMEA region for a two-year period, and that Motorola had breached the contract by moving its print business to China. The trial court found that the contract did not give Druckzentrum an exclusive right, and dismissed the claim. Druckzentrum appealed, arguing that although the purchasing contract did not contain an express exclusivity term, Motorola had promised Druckzentrum an exclusive right to the EMEA region business during the bidding process.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Sykes, C.J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 217,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.