12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Juanita 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 Phone: 619-678-5070 / Fax: 619-678-5099 Ruffin B. Cordell, DC Bar No. 445801,
pro hac vice
, cordell@fr.com Lauren A. Degnan, DC Bar No. 452421,
pro hac vice
, degnan@fr.com Fish & Richardson P.C. 1000 Maine Ave. SW Washington, D.C. 20024 Phone: 202-783-5070 / Fax: 202-783-2331 William A. Isaacson, DC Bar No. 414788,
pro hac vice
, wisaacson@bsfllp.com Karen L. Dunn, DC Bar No. 1002520,
pro hac vice
, kdunn@bsfllp.com Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 1401 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-237-2727 / Fax: 202-237-6131
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Apple Inc. [Additional counsel identified on signature page]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN RE: QUALCOMM LITIGATION. Case No. 3:17-CV-0108-GPC-MDD [Consolidated with Case No. 3:17-CV-01010-GPC-MDD]
APPLE INC. AND THE CONTRACT MANUFACTURERS’ MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO QUALCOMM’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL OF APPLE’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND THE CMS’ COUNTERCLAIMS Date: October 26, 2018 Time: 1:30 p.m. Judge: Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel Courtroom: 2D
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57107 Page 1 of 29
i
Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
II.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................... 3
A.
Apple and the CMs Have Claims That Implicate Exhaustion, Invalidity, and Noninfringement ......................................................................................... 3
B.
Qualcomm’s Claims and Defenses Thereto Implicate Exhaustion, Invalidity, and Noninfringement ....................................................................... 7
C.
Qualcomm’s Covenant Not To Sue ........................................................ 9
III.
ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 11
A.
Legal Standard ....................................................................................... 11
B.
Qualcomm’s Covenant Does Not Moot Apple or the CMs’ Exhaustion Counts .............................................................................................................. 12
C.
Qualcomm’s Covenant Does Not Moot Apple/CMs’ Invalidity Counts .............................................................................................................. 18
D.
Qualcomm’s Covenant Does Not Moot Apple/CMs’ Noninfringement Counts .............................................................................................................. 20
E.
Apple/CMs Do Not Oppose Dismissal of Their FRAND Counts ........ 21
IV.
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 22
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57108 Page 2 of 29
ii
Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s) Cases
Benitec Australia, Ltd. v. Nucleonics, Inc.
, 495 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ...................................................................... 11, 15
Esoterix Genetic Labs. LLC v. Qiagen Inc.
, No. 14-cv-13228-ADB, 2016 WL 4555613 (D. Mass. Aug. 31, 2016) ................................................................................................... 11, 17, 18, 19
Impression Prods., Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc.
, 137 S. Ct. 1523 (2017) .......................................................................................... 14
Monk v. Shulkin
, 855 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 11
Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc.
, 553 U.S. 617 (2008) .............................................................................................. 13
Super Sack Manufacturing Corp. v. Chase Packaging Corp.
, 57 F.3d 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1995),
abrogated on other grounds by MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.
, 549 U.S. 118 (2007) ........................... 11, 12
Statutes
35 U.S.C. § 284 .......................................................................................................... 21 Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1598-99 ........................................................................................ 16 California Unfair Competition Laws, Business and Professions Code § 17200 ....................................................................................... 2, 6, 12, 14, 15, 16
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57109 Page 3 of 29