Scribd

APPLE’S MPA ISO MSJ ON BCPA Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728Juanita R. Brooks (SBN 75934) brooks@fr.com Seth M. Sproul (SBN 217711) sproul@fr.com FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 12390 El Camino Real San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (619) 678-5070 / Facsimile: (619) 678-5099 Ruffin B. Cordell (DC Bar #445801; Admitted

Pro Hac Vice

) cordell@fr.com Lauren A. Degnan (DC Bar #452421; Admitted

Pro Hac Vice

) degnan@fr.com FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 1000 Main Avenue, S.W., Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20024 Telephone: (202) 783-5070 / Facsimile: (202) 783-2331 William A. Isaacson (DC Bar #414788; Admitted

Pro Hac Vice

) wisaacson@bsfllp.com Karen L. Dunn (DC Bar #1002520; Admitted

Pro Hac Vice

) kdunn@bsfllp.com BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 1401 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 237-2727 / Facsimile: (202) 237-6131

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Apple Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN RE: QUALCOMM LITIGATION, Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD [Consolidated with Case No. 3:17-CV-01010-GPC-MDD]

APPLE INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON BCPA COUNTERCLAIMS(COUNTERCLAIMS VI, VII, VIII, IX) Date:

November 9, 2018

Time:

1:30 p.m.

Courtroom:

2D

REDACTED VERSION

Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 602-1 Filed 09/01/18 PageID.49812 Page 1 of 23

APPLE’S MPA ISO MSJ ON BCPA iCase No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1

LEGAL STANDARD .............................................................................................. 3

ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 4

I.

QUALCOMM CANNOT RECOVER THE BCP PAYMENTS FOR AN EXPRESS OR IMPLIED BREACH OF SECTION 7 ................. 4

A.

Apple Did Not Breach Section 7 of the BCPA. ....................... 6

1.

Apple’s Responses to Agency Requests Cannot Constitute Active Inducement of the Agency Investigations. ................................................................. 6

2.

The BCPA Does Not Authorize Qualcomm to Regulate the Content of Apple’s Responses to Agency Requests. 9

3.

Apple’s Submissions to the KFTC Regarding Remedies Were at the KFTC’s Request and Within The Safe Harbor. ............................................................................ 9

4.

There is no Evidence That Apple Induced Samsung to Induce Any Part of the KFTC Investigation. ............... 10

5.

Qualcomm’s Interpretation Would Violate Public Policy. ........................................................................... 11

B.

The Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Does Not Create Obligations Beyond the BCPA’s Express Terms. ...... 12

C.

Unjust Enrichment Is Not a Cause of Action ......................... 13

D.

Qualcomm Owes Apple The Outstanding BCP Payments Because Apple Did Not File Suit Until the BCPA Expired. .. 13

II.

QUALCOMM CANNOT RECOVER THE BCP PAYMENTS FOR AN EXPRESS OR IMPLIED BREACH OF SECTION 4 OF THE BCPA. ............................................................................................... 15

A.

The BCP Payments Have Nothing to Do with Section 4. ...... 15

B.

The BCPA Limitation of Liability Provision Bars Qualcomm’s Requested Damages. ......................................... 16

CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 16


APPLE’S MPA ISO MSJ ON BCPA iiCase No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Abbit v. ING Annuity & Life Ins. Co.

999 F. Supp. 2d 1189 (S.D. Cal. 2014) ........................................................... 13

Andren v. Alere, Inc.

207 F. Supp. 3d 1133 (S.D. Cal. 2016) ........................................................... 13

Cariveau v. Halferty

83 Cal. App. 4th 126 (2000) ............................................................................ 11

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

477 U.S. 317 (1986) .......................................................................................... 4

D’Arrigo Bros. of Cal. v. United Farmworkers of Am.

224 Cal. App. 4th 790 (2014) .......................................................................... 11

Gabriel Techs. Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.

2010 WL 3718848 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2010) .................................................. 4

Hall v. Ikon Office Solutions, Inc.

2005 WL 1629806 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 8, 2005) .................................................... 14

Illinois v. Abbott

460 U.S. 557 (1983) ........................................................................................ 12

In re Air Passenger Computer Reservation Sys. Antitrust Litig.

116 F.R.D. 390 (C.D. Cal. 1986) .................................................................... 12

In re Crow Winthrop Operating P’ship

241 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2011) ........................................................................... 4

In re Ex Parte Application of Qualcomm Inc.

162 F. Supp. 3d 1029 (N.D. Cal. 2016) ........................................................... 12

Jogani v. Superior Court

165 Cal. App. 4th 901 (2008) .......................................................................... 13

Lewis Jorge Constr. Mgmt., Inc. v. Pomona Unified Sch. Dist.

34 Cal. 4th 960 (2004) ..................................................................................... 16

Lightbourne v. Printroom Inc.

122 F. Supp. 3d 942 (C.D. Cal. 2015) ............................................................... 9
