FTC’
S
M
OTION FOR
P
ARTIAL
S
UMMARY
J
UDGMENT
 Case No. 17-cv-00220-LHK-NMC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Jennifer Milici, D.C. Bar No. 987096 Joseph R. Baker, D.C. Bar No. 490802 Geoffrey M. Green, D.C. Bar No. 428392  Nathaniel Hopkin, N.Y. Bar No. 5191598 Rajesh S. James, N.Y. Bar No. 4209367 Philip J. Kehl, D.C. Bar No. 1010284 Daniel Matheson, D.C. Bar No. 502490 Kenneth H. Merber, D.C. Bar No. 985703 Mark J. Woodward, D.C. Bar. No. 479537 Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20580 (202)326-3695; (202) 326-3496 (fax)
 jmilici@ftc.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant. Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK-NMC
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
’
S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ON QUALCOMM’S
STANDARD ESSENTIAL PATENT LICENSING COMMITMENTS AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
Date: October 18, 2018 Time: 1:30 p.m. Courtroom: 8, 4th Floor Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 792 Filed 08/30/18 Page 1 of 26
 
 
i
FTC’
S
M
OTION FOR
P
ARTIAL
S
UMMARY
J
UDGMENT
 Case No. 17-cv-00220-LHK-NMC
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
To the Honorable Court, all parties, and their attorneys of record: Please take notice that on October 18, 2018, at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom 8, United States Courthouse, 280 South 1
st
 Street, San Jose, California 95113, Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission will and hereby does move the Court for partial summary judgment that Defendant
Qualcomm Incorporated’s commitments to the Alliance for Telecommunications
Industry Solutions
(“ATIS”) and the Telecommu
nications Industry Association
(“TIA”)
to make licenses to relevant standard-
essential patents (“SEPs”) available to “applicants” on fair, reasonable, and
non-
discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms
require and have required Qualcomm to make such licenses available to rival sellers of modem chips. This motion is made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, and is based on the ground that, as a matter of law,
Qualcomm’s contractual
commitments to ATIS and TIA to make
licenses to relevant SEPs available to “applicants” on FRAND terms require Qualcomm to make
such licenses available to rival modem-chip sellers. This motion is based on this Notice of Motion and the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support filed concurrently, the pleadings and documents on file in this case, and other such argument as may be presented by counsel at the hearing on this motion.
ISSUE TO BE DECIDED
Whether the Court should grant partial
summary judgment that Qualcomm’s
commitments to make licenses to covered SEPs available (1)
“
to applicants desiring to utilize the license for the purpose of implementing the [relevant ATIS] standard . . . under reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair discrimina
tion”
 and (2)
“
to all applicants under terms and conditions that are reasonable and non-discriminatory . . . to the extent necessary for the practice of [the relevant TIA
standard]”
 require Qualcomm to make such licenses available to competing modem-chip sellers whose chips implement those standards.
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 792 Filed 08/30/18 Page 2 of 26
 
 
ii
FTC’
S
M
OTION FOR
P
ARTIAL
S
UMMARY
J
UDGMENT
 Case No. 17-cv-00220-LHK-NMC
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
 
INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
 
II.
 
BACKGROUND FACTS ....................................................................................................3
 
A.
 
Overview of Standards and SSOs in 2G, 3G, and 4G .............................................3
 
B.
 
Modem Chips Practice Qualcomm’s Cellular SEPs
 ................................................5
 
C.
 
Qualcomm Does Not License Rivals That Request a License ................................5
 
III.
 
UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS SUPPORTING PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ................................................................................7
 
A. Qualcomm Voluntarily Committed under the ATIS IPR Policy to Make Available Licenses to Patents Essential to UMTS and LTE Standards .....7
 
B.
 
Qualcomm Voluntarily Committed under the TIA IPR Policy to Make Available Licenses to Patents Essential to CDMA Standards .................10
 
IV.
 
LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................14
 
V.
 
QUALCOMM’S FRAND COM
MITMENTS REQUIRE IT, AS A MATTER OF CONTRACT LAW, TO MAKE LICENSES AVAILABLE TO COMPETING CHIP SELLERS ........................................................................................17
 
A.
 
Qualcomm’s FRAND Commitments Are Binding Contracts
 ...............................17
 
B.
 
The Plain Language of the TIA IPR Policy Requires Qualcomm to Make Licenses Available to Competing Sellers of Modem Chips ....................18
 
C.
 
The Plain Language of the ATIS IPR Policy Requires Qualcomm to Make Licenses Available to Competing Sellers of Modem Chips ....................20
 
VI.
 
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................21
 
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 792 Filed 08/30/18 Page 3 of 26
View on Scribd
Back to document