Apple Veteran Explains why Silicon Valley's 'Fast Fail' approach won't work with Health Tech
While Apple's new iPhone Line-Up is bound to shake the Market next Week, Updates to Apple Watch and iPad Pro may Surprise

Magistrate Judge Rebukes Qualcomm for iPhone Patent Infringement Allegations

17 Patently Legal News

 

It's pretrial season in the Apple-Qualcomm FRAND disputes and we're bound to see a flurry of what is known as "motion practice" starting with one filed by Apple and their contract Manufacturers. The dispute is over 9 Qualcomm patents and this current motion is to strike portions of 12 expert reports served by Qualcomm.

 

The motion in full below begins by stating that "This Joint Motion was filed on July 10, 2018. The joint motion presents Apple, Inc., and the Contract Manufacturers' (referred to collectively, for convenience, as Apple) motion to strike portions of 12 expert reports served by Qualcomm. Apple asserts that the experts improperly opined regarding infringement and introduced new patents into this litigation. Apple's portion of the motion, along with its supporting documents, is 7,951 pages. Qualcomm's response, with its supporting documents, is 3,143 pages. The Court could have managed with much less. As provided below, Plaintiffs' motion to strike, as presented in this joint motion, is Granted in Part and Denied n Part."  

 

1 - Order on Motion to Strike Qualcomm Allegations Sept 2018 by Jack Purcher on Scribd

  

Legal analyst Florian Mueller noted in his report today that "the following harsh words show that Magistrate Judge Dembin was annoyed by the way in which multiple Qualcomm expert reports were inconsistent with Qualcomm's decision not to bring infringement counterclaims with respect to the original set of nine patents:

 

'Qualcomm's counsel know that in a declaratory judgment action by a licensee against a patentee seeking an order of non-infringement, the patentee, Qualcomm, bears the burden of persuasion of infringement. [...] Qualcomm made the tactical decision not to assert infringement and thus avoid certain discovery obligations as mentioned above. In its expert designations, Qualcomm chose not to disclose that certain experts expressly would opine on infringement and assert that Plaintiffs are infringing patents-in-suit. Qualcomm will be held accountable for the consequences of its tactical decisions." (emphasis added). For more on this, check out Mueller's report here.

 

10.4 - Patently Legal

About Comments: Patently Apple reserves the right to post, dismiss or edit comments. Those using abusive language or negative behavior will result in being blacklisted on Disqus.

Comments

The comments to this entry are closed.