To: Jim Mullens who wrote (197279 ) 1/19/2026 7:50:54 PM From: Jim Mullens 2 RecommendationsRecommended By
Read Replies (1) | Respond to Rev---Message #197279 from Jim Mullens at 1/19/2026 7:03:04 PM revised post >>>>>>>>>>>> gov.uscourts.ded.85553.595.0.pdf it produced Arm Ltd. documents without ever asserting that Arm Ltd. was not a party to the litigation; and it produced Arm Ltd. employees for depositions. See Qualcomm I, D.I. 589 at 2-3. Arm had denied that Arm Holdings plc was formerly known as Arm Ltd., see Qualcomm I, D.I. 31 ¶ 20, but attributed no legal significance to that statement. Then, on June 17, 2025, less than one month before the close of fact discovery and three months after the pleading amendment deadline, Arm answered Qualcomm’s Second Amended Complaint and asserted as a new defense that “Qualcomm fails to state a claim ” because “Arm Holdings plc is not a party to the Qualcomm ALA or TLA.” See Qualcomm I, D.I. 234 at 39. This came too late for Qualcomm to seek written discovery specific to that defense, as the last day to serve written discovery was June 11. See Qualcomm I, D.I. 44 ¶ 7(a) (fact discovery closed July 11, 2025); Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2), 34(b)(2), 36(a)(3) (30 days to respond to written discovery). But Qualcomm promptly sought information in depositions, including the June 30 deposition of Arm’s CLO, Spencer 4Citations in the form “A___” refer to the Appendix to Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Special Master’s January 7, 2026 Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend, filed in Qualcomm I. See Qualcomm I, D.I. 590 and 591.2
