dismiss where plaintiff stated breach of contract claim based on the defendant’s failure to offer reasonable and non-discriminatory terms as it had promised European Telecommunications Standards Institute and the IEEE); see also Ericsson Inc. v. Samsung Electronics, Co., Civil Action No. 2:06-CV-63, 2007 WL 1202728, at *1 (E.D.Tex. Apr. 20, 2007) (noting that the plaintiff and the defendant asserted claims for breach of contract and acknowledged that licensing obligations were contractual and bound all members of SSOs). Additionally, the court finds that Microsoft, as a member of both the IEEE and the ITU, is a third-party beneficiary of Motorola’s commitments to the IEEE and ITU. See ESS Tech., Inc. v. PC-Tel, Inc., No. C-99-20292 RMW, 1999 WL 33520483, at *4 (N.D.Cal. Nov. 4, 1999) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the court concludes that there
holding that a federal habeas court may grant specific performance of a plea agreement in the face of evidence that the state has breached the terms of such an agreement holding that the thirdparty beneficiary theory did not apply holding that the governments cooperation with a thirdparty is not sufficient to establish a thirdparty beneficiary relationship holding that a plaintiff who had asserted no claim against a thirdparty defendant lacked standing to complain of the courts action with regard to the thirdparty defendant holding that the thirdparty beneficiary of contract between a sso and the defendant who held essential patents had properly stated claim for specific performance of the agreement requiring the defendant to license patents on rand terms