Download 17-06-20 Apple's Amended Complaint Against Qualcomm PDF

Title17-06-20 Apple's Amended Complaint Against Qualcomm
TagsI Pad I Phone Mobile Phones Patent Technology
File Size1.2 MB
Total Pages170
Document Text Contents
Page 1

APPLE INC.’S AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Juanita R. Brooks (SBN 75934)
[email protected]
Seth M. Sproul (SBN 217711)
[email protected]
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
12390 El Camino Real
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: (619) 678-5070
Facsimile: (619) 678-5099

Ruffin B. Cordell (DC Bar No. 445801; admitted pro hac vice)
[email protected]
Lauren A. Degnan (DC Bar No. 452421; admitted pro hac vice)
[email protected]
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
1425 K Street, N.W., 11th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 783-5070
Facsimile: (202) 783-2331

William A. Isaacson (DC Bar No. 414788; admitted pro hac vice)
[email protected]
Karen L. Dunn (DC Bar No. 1002520; admitted pro hac vice)
[email protected]
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
1401 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 237-2727
Facsimile: (202) 237-6131

[Additional counsel identified on signature page]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Apple Inc.



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


APPLE INC.,

Plaintiff,

vs.


QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Defendant.



Case No. 17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD

REDACTED FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES,
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL



Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 83 Filed 06/20/17 PageID.1738 Page 1 of 170

Page 2

APPLE INC.’S AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,


Counterclaim-Plaintiff,


vs.


APPLE INC.,

Counterclaim-Defendant.


Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 83 Filed 06/20/17 PageID.1739 Page 2 of 170

Page 85

78
APPLE INC.’S AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

of non-limiting example, Apple’s products do not satisfy the following claim

limitation: 1.[b].

285. As a result of the acts described in the foregoing paragraphs, there exists

a definite and concrete, real and substantial, justiciable controversy between Apple

and Qualcomm regarding the noninfringement of the ’242 patent with respect to

Apple’s products. This controversy is of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant

the issuance of a Declaratory Judgment.

286. Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et

seq., Apple requests the declaration of the Court that Apple does not infringe and has

not infringed any claim of the ’242 patent.

COUNT VI

Declaration of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,246,242

287. Apple restates and incorporates by reference each of the allegations set

forth above.

288. One or more claims of the ’242 patent fails to meet the conditions of

patentability and/or otherwise comply with one or more provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§

101 et seq., including 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. By way of non-limiting

example, the representative claim, claim 1, of the ’242 patent is anticipated and/or

rendered obvious in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,711,400.

289. U.S. Patent No. 6,711,400 issued on March 23, 2004 from an application

that was filed on April 1, 1997. Because the filing date of this reference predates the

earliest application to which the ’242 patent claims priority, it qualifies as prior art

under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

290. As a result of the acts described in the foregoing paragraphs, there exists

a definite and concrete, real and substantial, justiciable controversy between Apple

and Qualcomm regarding the validity of one or more claims of the ’242 patent. This

controversy is of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a

Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 83 Filed 06/20/17 PageID.1822 Page 85 of 170

Page 86

79
APPLE INC.’S AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Declaratory Judgment.

291. Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et

seq., Apple requests the declaration of the Court that one or more claims of the ’242

patent is invalid.

COUNT VII

Declaration of FRAND Royalties for U.S. Patent No. 7,246,242

292. Apple restates and incorporates by reference each of the allegations set

forth above.

293. Qualcomm has contractually obligated to license the ’242 patent on

FRAND terms and conditions.

294. As a result of the acts described in the foregoing paragraphs, there exists

a definite and concrete, real and substantial, justiciable controversy between Apple

and Qualcomm regarding the FRAND royalty for the ’242 patent with respect to

Apple’s products. This controversy is of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant

the issuance of a Declaratory Judgment.

295. To the extent that the ’242 patent is actually essential to a standard, valid,

infringed by Apple, and not exhausted, then Qualcomm must (a) select as a royalty

base, at most, the smallest salable unit substantially embodying the ’242 patent, and

(b) apply to that royalty base a reasonable royalty rate that reflects the actual technical

contribution to the standard that is attributable to the patent. See CSIRO, 809 F.3d at

1305; Ericsson, 773 F.3d at 1209; Innovatio IP Ventures, 2013 WL 5593609, at *13;

Microsoft, 2013 WL 2111217, at *74. As discussed above, Qualcomm has not

complied with these requirements, and has not offered FRAND terms, even if Apple

has been benefitting from a license between Qualcomm and Apple’s CMs. As an

alternative to its requests for declarations of noninfringement, invalidity, and

unenforceability, Apple is entitled to a judicial declaration that sets a FRAND royalty

for the ’242 patent in this manner.

Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 83 Filed 06/20/17 PageID.1823 Page 86 of 170

Page 169

162
APPLE INC.’S AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Exhibit No. Pages

Z 444-445



Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 83 Filed 06/20/17 PageID.1906 Page 169 of 170

Page 170

1
APPLE INC.’S AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above

and foregoing document has been served on June 20, 2017 to all counsel of record

who are deemed to have consented to electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF

system per Civil Local Rule 5.4. Any other counsel of record will be served by

electronic mail, facsimile and/or overnight delivery.

Dated: June 20, 2017
/s/ Juanita R. Brooks
Juanita R. Brooks




Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 83 Filed 06/20/17 PageID.1907 Page 170 of 170

Similer Documents