Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp.

No. 05 Civ. 1958, 2010 WL 1336937 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2010)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 33,600+ case briefs...

Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp.

Court of Appeals for the Southern District of California

No. 05 Civ. 1958, 2010 WL 1336937 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2010)

Play video

Facts

In October 2005, Qualcomm Inc. (plaintiff) brought suit against Broadcom Corp. (defendant), alleging patent infringement on two patents. In Broadcom’s answer, it alleged an affirmative defense that the patents were unenforceable due to waiver. The argument for waiver was based on Qualcomm’s participation in the Joint Video Team (JVT) in 2002 and early 2003. The JVT developed the H.264 standard, and Qualcomm’s involvement with it would have been fatal to Qualcomm’s suit. During discovery, Qualcomm denied any involvement in the JVT before December 2003 and claimed to have no documentation relating to involvement before then. During depositions, Qualcomm’s representatives continued to deny involvement, despite the fact that Broadcom had produced a December 2002 email to a Qualcomm email address, suggesting Qualcomm’s involvement in the JVT. As Qualcomm prepared its employee witnesses for trial, one attorney, Adam Bier, came across 21 separate emails on one employee’s computer that were addressed to JVT email groups. He did not inform opposing counsel of the emails, and the correspondence only came to light on cross examination. The jury found in Broadcom’s favor with respect to the Qualcomm’s waiver. Post-trial, Qualcomm’s attorneys found 46,000 electronic documents that directly related to the case, and that tended to confirm that Qualcomm was involved in the JVT earlier than December 2003. The court found that Qualcomm had actively concealed information during discovery and trial, and it awarded attorneys fees to Broadcom, in addition to a final fee award of $8,568,633.24.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Mahor, J.)

What to do next…

  1. 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 603,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. 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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 603,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,600 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 603,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 33,600 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership