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 : Nokia Corp. (NOK) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eric L who wrote (4699)	3/22/2007 8:31:39 PM
From: Eric L	Respond to of 9255

Equal Time for QUALCOMM Spin on Their Lack of IPR Disclosure ... ... and the less important charge of inequitable conduct. >> Federal Judge Rules QUALCOMM’s Conduct before U.S. Patent Office Lawful But Finds QUALCOMM Did Not Meet Unwritten IPR Disclosure Expectations of Standard Setting Group QUALCOMM PR San Dieg March 22, 2007 qualcomm.com A federal judge ruled today that “despite the jury's advisory verdict to the contrary, the Court finds no clear and convincing evidence of inequitable conduct” by QUALCOMM Incorporated (Nasdaq: QCOM) in obtaining two patents. The patents are U.S. Patents Nos. 5,452,104 and 5,576,767 relating to techniques for compressing digital video signals for more efficient storage or transmission. A 2005 suit filed by QUALCOMM in San Diego federal court accused Broadcom's video encoding chips of infringing the patents. At a trial in January 2007, Broadcom argued that QUALCOMM had deceived the Patent Office by withholding certain alleged prior art in order to obtain the patents. In today's ruling, Judge Rudi M. Brewster flatly disagreed, finding that QUALCOMM had disclosed the most relevant prior art to the patent office and that QUALCOMM was not guilty of any conduct before the Patent Office that would render the patents unenforceable. The judge also ruled today that QUALCOMM's disclosure of its ownership of patents essential to the H.264 video encoding standard created by the Joint Video Team (JVT) standardization group was not timely in light of what he found to be the unwritten expectations of the group's members. The Broadcom chips accused of infringement by QUALCOMM implement the H.264 video standard. Notably, the court did not find that QUALCOMM had violated any provision of the JVT's written intellectual property policy, but rather that a duty to make an earlier disclosure arose from his conclusion that the JVT members considered themselves obligated to make IPR declarations in circumstances not mandated by the written IPR policy. The judge declared that a remedy in such circumstances should not be automatic and scheduled a further hearing on May 2, 2007 in order to determine the appropriate remedy. “QUALCOMM is gratified by the court's confirmation that our conduct before the Patent Office was lawful and consistent with our duty of candor,” said Lou Lupin, QUALCOMM's general counsel. “We are very troubled, however, by the judge's finding that an obligation to make IPR declarations may arise in the standard setting environment from members' 'understandings' not expressed in the standard setting organization's written IPR policy. Such a rule would leave companies whose businesses require them to participate in standardization efforts in the untenable position of having to guess what their disclosure obligations might be. We respectfully disagree with the court's reasoning that strict compliance with a standards body's written IPR policy is not enough. We also believe that, even if such an unwritten obligation could arise when the standards body members all considered themselves to be so obligated, all evidence here was that the JVT participants did not.” A federal jury found in January that Broadcom's video encoding chips did not infringe QUALCOMM's two patents, although the jury ruled that the patents are valid. While QUALCOMM will likely appeal the jury's verdict of noninfringement, the Company will await the outcome of the May 2, 2007 hearing on remedies before making any final decision regarding an appeal. ### - Eric -

To: Eric L who wrote (4699)	3/29/2007 12:09:35 PM
From: blimfark	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9255

Have any estimates of the risk to NOKs earnings related to legal disputes with QCOM been discussed? Certainly an injunction prohibiting NOK from selling GSM/EDGE handsets could deal a serious blow to NOKs bottom line. It has been reported that NOK has admitted the use of QCOM patents for which it is not licensed. This brinksmanship all appears rather reckless if there is any chance that legal actions by QCOM could put revenues in jeopardy.

To: Eric L who wrote (4699)	4/13/2007 10:47:00 AM
From: Eric L	Respond to of 9255

Another Broadcom v. QUALCOMM Salvo ... in California Superior Court in Orange County near their headquarters. >> Broadcom Charges Qualcomm with Unfair Competition, Fraud and Breach of Contract Broadcom Press Release Irvine, Calif. April 13, 2007 broadcom.com Broadcom Corporation (Nasdaq: BRCM), a global leader in semiconductors for wired and wireless communications, today announced that it has commenced new litigation against Qualcomm Incorporated (Nasdaq: QCOM) asserting that Qualcomm's conduct before prominent industry standards organizations violates California law. In a 37-page complaint filed late Thursday in California Superior Court in Orange County, Broadcom asserts that Qualcomm's misconduct before standards setting bodies includes improperly concealing its patents, reneging on licensing obligations, and exerting dominance through hidden affiliations. The complaint alleges that Qualcomm has engaged in a pattern of misconduct across multiple technologies and multiple standards bodies, including those responsible for setting cellular, video, and mobile broadband standards. Broadcom maintains that this misconduct constitutes fraud, breach of contract, and violation of California's unfair competition statute. San Diego, Calif.-based Qualcomm claims that other industry participants require licenses to its patent portfolio because its patents allegedly cover various telecommunications and other industry standards. In its complaint, Broadcom cites numerous instances of improper conduct by Qualcomm relating to industry standards bodies, including two recent and public ones: On March 22, the U.S. District Court in San Diego adopted a unanimous jury finding that Qualcomm violated its duty to disclose patents to the international organization that developed the H.264 video compression standard. That court is scheduled to hold a hearing on the proper remedy for Qualcomm's violation on May 2. Separately, in June 2006 the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) suspended its 802.20 standards working group, which had been developing a "4G" wireless communication standard, after an investigation revealed that Qualcomm covertly dominated that group by hiring working group members who did not disclose their affiliations with Qualcomm. "We now know that Qualcomm has been playing games with industry standards processes for years, leaving both consumers and competitors like Broadcom to pay a heavy price," said David A. Dull, Broadcom's Senior Vice President and General Counsel. "Our goal is to put a stop to this improper behavior and force Qualcomm to play by the same rules that apply to its competitors as well as its own customers." The relief Broadcom seeks from Qualcomm in the lawsuit includes disgorgement of profits, restitution, compensatory and punitive damages, and a permanent injunction barring Qualcomm from seeking to enforce certain cellular, video, and mobile broadband patents against Broadcom or Broadcom's customers. Additional Actions While Qualcomm has either lost or dismissed all of its patent infringement claims against Broadcom, Broadcom continues to pursue various claims against Qualcomm. Last fall, a United States International Trade Commission (ITC) judge ruled that Qualcomm's cellular baseband chips infringe five claims of a Broadcom patent. The full Commission affirmed that ruling in December and is expected to issue a decision May 8 on the appropriate remedy for Qualcomm's infringement. Beginning May 1, the U.S. District Court in Santa Ana, Calif. is scheduled to try Broadcom's claims that Qualcomm infringes three additional Broadcom patents relating to cellular technology. Separately, in other actions, Broadcom has joined five other leading mobile wireless technology companies in filing complaints with the European Commission alleging that Qualcomm has engaged in anticompetitive conduct in the licensing of its patents and the sale of its chipsets for mobile wireless devices and systems. The six companies assert that Qualcomm is violating EU competition law and failing to meet the commitments it made to international standards bodies to license its technology on fair, reasonable and non- discriminatory terms. Broadcom and other wireless technology companies have filed similar complaints before the Korean Fair Trade Commission. About Broadcom Broadcom Corporation is a major technology innovator and global leader in semiconductors for wired and wireless communications. Broadcom products enable the delivery of voice, video, data and multimedia to and throughout the home, the office and the mobile environment. We provide the industry's broadest portfolio of state-of-the-art, system-on-a-chip and software solutions to manufacturers of computing and networking equipment, digital entertainment and broadband access products, and mobile devices. These solutions support our core mission: Connecting everything®. Broadcom is one of the world's largest fabless semiconductor companies, with 2006 revenue of $3.67 billion, and holds over 2,000 U.S. and 800 foreign patents, more than 6,000 additional pending patent applications, and one of the broadest intellectual property portfolios addressing both wired and wireless transmission of voice, video and data. Broadcom is headquartered in Irvine, Calif., and has offices and research facilities in North America, Asia and Europe. ### - Eric -