Podcast: Conductive Discussions: Recent FRAND & Trade Secret Enforcement Trends Affecting the Semiconductor Industry
FCPA Compliance and Ethics Report-Episode 243-Lessons Learned from Olympus and Qualcomm FCPA Enforcement Actions
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH FOUNDATION v. APPLE INC. [OPINION] (2022-1884, 8/28/2024) (Prost, Taranto, and Chen) - Prost, J. The Court affirmed two final judgments of the...more
Intel filed three IPR petitions against Qualcomm’s ’949 patent, which is directed to “boot code” in a multi-processor system. Apple, who was not a party to any of the IPRs, uses Intel’s baseband processors in certain iPhone...more
As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more
Key 2022 judgments apply a five-factor analysis outlined by the EU’s highest court in 2017 - The past year has seen a number of judgments by the General Court of the European Union (GC)—the EU's court of first...more
The General Court of the European Union delivered a blow to the European Commission in fully annulling its Qualcomm (exclusivity payments) decision of 2018 and a EUR 997 million fine. Qualcomm v Commission1 is the first...more
In Qualcomm Incorporated v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit held that applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) may not be the basis of an invalidity ground in an inter partes review (IPR), and therefore, an IPR petition cannot...more
On February 1, in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit held that Apple could not base an inter partes review (IPR) challenge of a Qualcomm patent solely on “applicant admitted prior art” (AAPA) found in the patent...more
On the first of February, in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the CAFC”) vacated and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) on two inter partes review (“IPR”)...more
In late December, in Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 2020-1828 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 28, 2021), the Federal Circuit found the PTAB erred by accepting Intel’s stipulation concerning the indefiniteness of a means-plus-function claim...more
Cooley litigators secured a win on behalf of Qualcomm, a San Diego based technology company that specializes in semiconductors, in a securities class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District...more
Section 311(b) limits inter partes review to “ground[s] that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (emphasis added). An...more
In a decision dated February 1, 2022, the Federal Circuit confirmed that applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) may not form the basis of a validity challenge in an inter partes review (IPR). The decision arose out of two IPRs...more
Ranges for Interdependent and Interactive Components Can Be Tricky to Derive - In Modernatx, Inc. v. Arbutus Biopharma Corporation, Appeal No. 20-2329, the Federal Circuit held that a presumption of obviousness based on...more
Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION v. HEC PHARM CO., LTD. [OPINION] (2021-1070, January 3, 2021) (MOORE, LINN and O’MALLEY) - O’Malley, J. Affirming district court decision...more
INTEL CORPORATION v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED - Before Prost, Taranto, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Indefinite claims do not preclude patentability analysis at the PTAB....more
INTEL CORPORATION v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED - Before Prost, Taranto, and Hughes. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A “generic” motivation to combine that has broad appeal or applicability is not...more
Venue and Pleading Infringement in Hatch-Waxman Litigation Turn on Location and Identity of ANDA Filer - In Celgene Corp. v. Mylan Pharm. et al., Appeal No. 21-1154, the Federal Circuit held that in Hatch-Waxman...more
Another diversity-based derivative suit was dismissed this week by a federal district court, joining a list of decisions that have rejected similar shareholder allegations. ...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reiterated that a patent challenger did not have Article III appellate standing to obtain review of a final Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) ruling because the underlying...more
APPLE, INC. v. QUALCOMM, INC. Before Newman, Prost, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Apple lacked standing to appeal an IPR decision upholding patents that Apple licenses from...more
The Ninth Circuit has held that a putative class of nationwide consumers that brought damages claims under California law was erroneously certified. Until now, class actions asserting claims for plaintiffs across the country...more
Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - QUALCOMM INCORPORATED v. INTEL CORPORATION [OPINION] (2020-1589, 2020-1590, 2020-1591, 2020-1592, 2020-1593, 2020-1594, 7/27/21) (Moore, Reyna, Stoll) - Moore, J. Vacating final...more
District Court’s Pleading Standard Returns an Error Code in PS4 Battle - In Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corporation Of America, Appeal No. 20-2218, the Federal Circuit held that the district court’s view that infringement...more
In Qualcomm Inc. v. Intel Corp., the Federal Circuit held that Qualcomm was not afforded notice of, or an adequate opportunity to respond to, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) novel construction of an undisputed...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated several Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions as violating due process and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), referencing the parties’ inability to respond...more