Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp.

Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp.
Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp. “Qualcomm I - 2.1 Qualcomm I

Qualcomm IV”, was a series of US Federal cases between
Qualcomm Inc. and Broadcom Corp. involving patent Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., 2007 U.S. Dist.
infringement and the duty to disclose patents to the JVT LEXIS 57136 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2007)
Standard Setting Organization and industry misconduct. A series of cases erupted as Qualcomm brought a suit
Qualcomm held a relevant patent, but neglected to report against Broadcom for infringement. First in a 2007
it to the Standard Setting Agency until after it had made a Southern California district court, Qualcomm was ruled
ruling, and thus the point in question is if Qualcomm had against on the grounds that they had mishandled reporting
waived its right to enforce its patent or not. The first of their patent. The court ruled that Qualcomm had waived
the series began in 2007 and ended in 2010.[1][2][3][4][5][6]its right to enforce the patent by these actions and found
Qualcomm II is the most significant of these cases be- in favor of Broadcom.[3]
cause it makes the greatest deliberations on the question
of enforceability in the case of unreported patents. This
was the central point in question with these cases, the oth- 2.2 Qualcomm II
ers being offshoots of this main theme.[1][2]
Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., “Qualcomm II”, 2008
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 911 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2008)
The case was then taken to a US district court where
Qualcomm appealed its case. This court examined Qual-
1 Background comm’s misconduct and what it described as “intentional
and persistent insulation”.[3] Therefore, the court once
Broadcom and Qualcomm both compete in the same mo- more ruled in Broadcom’s favor and ordered that Qual-
bile device chipset industry, such as those used in cell comm could not enforce[3][4]
its patents in question, or any
phones.[3][5] This technology is available in what is clas- derivative of them.
sified as 3rd Generation, or 3G, processor chips. There The court affirmed the decision of the lower court, that
were, and still are, two technology paths for this industry Qualcomm had waived its right to enforce its patent since
that are not compatible so companies subscribe to either it failed to disclose it to a standards board it was willingly
one or the other; CDMA or GSM. Broadcom and Qual- a part of.[2]
comm subscribe to different technology paths, although
the standards boards are closely connected and work for
entire industry growth.[4] 2.3 Qualcomm III
The two companies have different models of chips that Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., “Qualcomm III”,
are incompatible with each other and thus do not work 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16897 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2008).
together. Nonetheless there is an industry standardiza-
tion organization responsible for classifying patents and Although the court ruled largely in Broadcom’s favor,
level of innovation for different generations. Qualcomm they felt Qualcomm had avoided damages for obtain-
had acquired a certain patent that was relevant to both ing a monopoly through its deceitful tactics. Therefore,
technology paths but neglected to inform either standard Broadcom appealed the case to the US Court of Appeals,
organization about it, waiting instead for new standards to 3rd Circuit in 2008.[4] In these deliberations, the court
be set. The aim of this move, according to litigators and affirmed-in-part part of their decision, but reversed-in-
the court, was to cause competing firms to unknowingly part another part specifically on further damages owed by
infringe on Qualcomm’s patent so that they could seek Qualcomm for the effects of its misconduct and lack of
damages and royalties, rather than bar direct usage.[1][6] adequate remedy.[5] In addition to this ruling, the court
determined that Qualcomm after having paid damages
could now enforce its patents, and that the case should
be remanded and heard in more deliberation.[4][5]
The deliberations of the Court of Appeals, Federal Cir-
2 Cases cuit in 2008 were much the same. Except that the court
reversed the ruling on Qualcomm’s enforceability, since
1
2 5 REFERENCES
it claimed the gross misconduct of Qualcomm was con- Secondly, it has also encouraged standards boards to cre-
trary to competition and the public interest.[5] ate their own penalties and patent enforceability for sim-
ilar situations that may arise in the future. Firms are not
likely to want the same costly litigation that occurred in
2.4 Qualcomm IV these cases, and thus a uniform code set by their stan-
dards board will help solve this. This therefore may lead
[5]
Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., “Qualcomm IV”, to strengthened and more active standards boards.
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33889 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2010).
Qualcomm IV was the final case in the series and was
different from the others in that it did not directly in- 5 References
volve the patent infringement and enforceability question
as before, but the legal misconduct of Qualcomm in the [1] “Qualcomm Incorporated v. Broadcom Corporation”
previous three cases.[6] Specifically, legal experts from (PDF). United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Cir-
cuit.
Broadcom discovered major errors, contradictions, and
omissions in what Qualcomm had reported to the courts. [2] “Victory, defeat and unenforceable patents”. The IPKat.
They believed that it was malicious fraud intended to di- Dec 12, 2008.
lute the appeared impact of their actions and knowledge
of such.[6] [3] “QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, v.
BROADCOM CORPORATION, Defendants.”. United
However, the court found through the evidence, that it States District Court, S.D. California.
was not any intended mistakes that caused the omissions
and errors. It was through a series of unaccountable [4] “BROADCOM CORPORATION, Appellant v. QUAL-
COMM INCORPORATED.”. United States Court of Ap-
mishaps at several levels of Qualcomm’s employees that
peals, Third Circuit.
led to them missing several key points that led them to
believe they were not required to provide large sets of [5] “BROADCOM CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee,
documents and evidence.[6] v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, Defendant-
Appellant.”. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Cir-
The court dismissed this case on the grounds that it was
cuit.
not due to any intended deception but rather basic negli-
gence. However the court did not suggest or demand any [6] “Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., “Qualcomm IV”,
follow up investigation into this matter.[6] 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33889 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2010).”.
Applied Discovery.}
The court initially recommended a program to manage le-
gal protocol and aid in its investigation. When it arrived at
its decision, however, it dismissed this plan. Although it
did recommend such a program for future incidents sim-
ilar to Qualcomm’s.[6]
3 Decision
The final decisions made by the courts over the course
of these cases were that Qualcomm waived its right to
enforceability through its misconduct, and could not seek
remedies for infringements before or even after the case.
It had willingly been a part of a standard setting agency,
and so the omission of its patent was grounds for dismissal
of that patent.[1][2][5]
4 Significance
This was a major case in the world of patent law and in-
novation; it established the precedent that certain patents
were simply unenforceable if an organization member
omitted something of importance. It greatly increases the
incentive to disclose information, especially for firms in
industries with standards boards.[2]
3
6 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

6.1 Text
• Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualcomm_Inc._v._Broadcom_Corp.?oldid=725332270
Contributors: Seaweed, Malcolma, MenoBot II, I dream of horses, BattyBot, DaltonCastle and Anonymous: 2
6.2 Images
• File:Wiki_letter_w.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6c/Wiki_letter_w.svg License: Cc-by-sa-3.0 Contributors:
? Original artist: ?
6.3 Content license

• Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0

Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp.

Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp. “Qualcomm I - 2.1 Qualcomm I

6 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

6.3 Content license

You might also like