12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
5921789v1
/015494
Case No. 5:17-md-02773-LHK PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANT QUALCOMM’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Kalpana Srinivasan (237460)
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 Email: ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com Joseph W. Cotchett (36324)
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 Email: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
Plaintiffs’ Interim Co-Lead Counsel
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
IN RE: QUALCOMM ANTITRUST LITIGATIONCase No. 5:17-md-02773-LHK The Honorable Lucy H. Koh
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO DEFENDANT QUALCOMM’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION CLASS ACTION
Date: Thursday, August 30, 2018 Time: 1:30 p.m. Place: Courtroom 8 First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint filed June 13, 2018
Case 5:17-md-02773-LHK Document 620 Filed 07/19/18 Page 1 of 19
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
5921789v1/015494
i Case No. 5:17-md-02773-LHK TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
Plaintiffs Have Not Delayed ................................................................................................ 1
II.
Qualcomm’s Anticompetitive Conduct Has Harmed Plaintiffs And An Exclusion Order Would Magnify That Harm .................................................................................................. 3
III.
The Court Has Jurisdiction Under The All Writs Act To Grant Relief ............................... 8
IV.
Plaintiffs Need Not Satisfy The Requirements Of Rule 65 ............................................... 10
V.
Qualcomm’s Effort to Exclude
Only
Intel-Based Chipsets Is Anticompetitive ................ 11
VI.
The
Noerr-Pennington
Doctrine Does Not Apply ............................................................. 13
VII.
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 14
Case 5:17-md-02773-LHK Document 620 Filed 07/19/18 Page 2 of 19
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
5921789v1/015494
i Case No. 5:17-md-02773-LHK TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Federal
Cases
Ashlow Ltd. v. Morgan Const. Co.
,672 F.2d 371 (4th Cir. 1982)........................................................................................................ 8
Balsley v. San Jose Dev. Corp.
,1995 WL 108207, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 1995) ..................................................................... 11
Bates v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.
511 F.3d 974, 985 (9th Cir. 2007) ............................................................................................... 3
Blue Shield of Va. v. McCready
, 457 U.S. 465, 482 (1982) ............................................................................................................ 4
Boardman v. Pac. Seafood Grp
.,822 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2016)...................................................................................................... 6
Cal. Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited
,404 U.S. 508 (1972) ................................................................................................................... 13
Cheminor Drugs, Ltd. v. Ethyl Corp.
,168 F.3d 119 (3d Cir. 1999) ....................................................................................................... 13
City of Los Angeles v. Lyons,
461 U.S. 95, 111 (1983) .............................................................................................................. 3
Federated Conservationists of Westchester Cty., Inc. v. City of Yonkers
,117 F. Supp. 2d 371 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) ........................................................................................ 11
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. S.C.
,945 F.2d 781 (4th Cir. 1991)........................................................................................................ 6
Huawei Tech., Co. Ltd. v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd.
,Case No. 3:16-cv-02787-WHO, Dkt. 280 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2018) ....................................... 10
In re Baldwin-United Corp
.,770 F.2d 328 (2d Cir. 1985) ....................................................................................................... 10
In re BRCA1-, BRCA2-Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent Litig
.,3 F. Supp. 3d 1213 (D. Utah) ....................................................................................................... 7
In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig.
(“
CRT”
), 738 F. Supp. 2d 1011, 1023 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ............................................................................ 4
In re Convertible Rowing Exerciser Patent Litig.
616 F. Supp. 1134 (D. Del. 1985) ................................................................................................ 8
In re Netflix Antitrust Litigation
,506 F. Supp. 2d 308 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ......................................................................................... 3
In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig.
, 586 F. Supp. 2d 1109, 1120-24 (2008) .................................................................................... 3-4
In re Uranium Antitrust Litig.
,617 F.2d 1248 (7th Cir. 1980)...................................................................................................... 8
In re Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prod. Liab. Litig.
, No. MDL 2672 CRB (JSC), 2017 WL 2212783, at *27 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2017) ................... 8
Case 5:17-md-02773-LHK Document 620 Filed 07/19/18 Page 3 of 19