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 : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (52140)	5/17/2006 11:57:40 AM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 198047

I don't read footnote 50 as an admission on Q's part. Rather, I think Q simply agreed that the industry in question uses one of the claims in the patent so as to establish a procedural aspect of BRCM's claim for relief, a jurisdictional point if you will. I don't think this admission necessarily establishes the validity of the patent or the relevant claim. I agree that Qualcomm's not contending is not an absolute admission (i.e. it didn't stipulate). Therefore it might be tactical. Hard to tell, especially without knowing the larger process picture. Does anyone know the larger ITC Process picture? E.g. do they have to have Markman hearings? What is the appeals process? What remedies can the ITC courts impose? But regardless no one should expect a clean sweep - the chance that a reasonably competent, if litigious, company like Broadcom has no patents upon which Qualcomm infringes has to be near zero. This is going to be about relatively value. Clark