Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The New Qualcomm - a S&P500 company -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GO*QCOM who wrote (612)	8/5/1999 10:30:00 PM
From: Michael	Respond to of 13582

From QCOM recent SEC filing concerning MOT lawsuit edgar-online.com < On July 20, 1999, we filed a lawsuit against Motorola, Inc. seeking a judicial determination that we have the right to terminate all licenses granted to Motorola under a 1990 Patent License Agreement, while retaining all licenses granted by Motorola to us under the same agreement. We filed our complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California where other actions between us and Motorola have been pending for more than two years. The complaint alleges that Motorola has committed breaches of our Patent License Agreement with Motorola that include pursuing a lawsuit against us for infringement of patents that are in fact licensed to us under the agreement and a failure to grant certain sublicenses to us in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Our new filing also seeks a ruling that upon termination of the Patent License Agreement, the patents formerly licensed to Motorola would be infringed by CDMA handsets, integrated circuits and network infrastructure equipment made and sold by Motorola. >

To: GO*QCOM who wrote (612)	8/5/1999 11:04:00 PM
From: Brihack	Respond to of 13582

Go*QCOM: Sorry about the legalese "in chambers" which means that the case file containing the complaint and any related documents/attachments have been in the hands of the assigned District Court judge or his staff (clerks, research attorneys, etc). I have been looking to review the original pleadings for some time to respond to JGoren's inquiry regarding whether any interesting documents were attached to the complaint. When I reviewed a scanned version of the documents, there were no such attached documents listed. I suspect that the court has been working on consolidating this action with the pending/previously filed suits between Q and Mot. Q's attorneys included a statement that these other pending cases are related to Q's July 20 '97 suit. I will continue to "lurk" in the District Court Clerk's Office regularly to monitor for any activity. Brihack