Qualcomm 2011 Annual Report Download - page 29

Item 3. Legal Proceedings
Tessera, Inc. v. QUALCOMM Incorporated: On April 17, 2007, Tessera filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas and a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) pursuant to Section 337 of
the Tariff Act of 1930 against us and other companies, alleging infringement of two patents. The district court action is stayed pending resolution
of the ITC proceeding, including all appeals. On May 20, 2009, the ITC issued a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order, both of
which were terminated when the patents expired on September 24, 2010. During the period of the exclusion order, we shifted supply of accused
chips for customers who manufacture products that may be imported to the United States to a licensed supplier of Tessera, and we continued to
supply those customers without interruption. On December 21, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision
affirming the ITC’s orders, and on March 29, 2011, it declined to reconsider that decision. We have filed a petition to the United States Supreme
Court, which may or may not accept this case for appeal. Once the stay is lifted, Tessera may continue to seek back damages in the district court,
but it may not seek injunctive relief due to the expiration of the patents.
MicroUnity Systems Engineering, Inc. v. QUALCOMM Incorporated et al.: MicroUnity filed a total of three patent infringement complaints,
on March 16, 2010, June 3, 2010 and January 27, 2011, against us and a number of other technology companies, including Texas Instruments,
Samsung, Apple, Nokia, Google and HTC, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaints against us allege
infringement of a total of 15 patents and appear to accuse our Snapdragon products. The district court consolidated the actions in May 2011. The
claim construction hearing is set for August 12, 2012, and trial is scheduled for June 3, 2013. On September 30, 2011, the court denied our
motion to sever the claims against us from the other defendants and to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.
Broadcom Corporation et al. v. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) : On November 10, 2009,
Broadcom and Atheros Communications, Inc., which we acquired in May 2011 and was renamed Qualcomm Atheros, Inc. (Atheros), filed a
complaint for declaratory judgment against CSIRO in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, requesting the court to
declare, among other things, that United States patent number 5,487,069 (the ’069 Patent) assigned to CSIRO is invalid and unenforceable and
that Atheros does not infringe any valid claims of the ’
069 Patent. On October 14, 2010, CSIRO filed a complaint against Atheros and Broadcom
(amended and consolidated with complaints against other third parties on April 6, 2011) alleging infringement of the ’069 Patent. A claim
construction hearing was held on October 4, 2011, and trial is scheduled for April 9, 2012.
MOSAID Technologies Incorporated v. Dell, Inc. et al. : On March 16, 2011, MOSAID filed a complaint against Atheros and 32 other
entities in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. In its infringement contentions, MOSAID alleges that certain of
Atheros’ products infringe United States patent numbers 5,131,006, 5,151,920, 5,422,887, 5,706,428, 5,563,786 and 6,992,972. MOSAID seeks
unspecified damages and other relief. Discovery has not yet begun. A claim construction hearing is scheduled for February 18, 2014, and trial is
scheduled for August 4, 2014.
India BWA Spectrum: In June 2010, we won a 20 MHz slot of Broadband Wireless Access (BWA) spectrum in four regions (known as
telecom circles) in India as a result of the completion of the BWA spectrum auction for which we made a $1.1 billion payment ($994 million at
September 25, 2011). We created four wholly-
owned subsidiaries, and on August 9, 2010, each subsidiary filed an application to obtain a license
to operate a wireless network on this spectrum for one of the respective regions. Thereafter, two Indian companies each acquired 13% of each
subsidiary. On September 21, 2011, we received a letter dated September 7, 2011 from the Government of India’s Department of
Telecommunications (DoT) (the DoT Letter) notifying us that our applications had been rejected based on its conclusion that the applications
were filed after the deadline and that we were restricted to filing one application rather than four. On September 27, 2011, we filed a petition
with the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) seeking to overturn the DoT Letter. On September 28, 2011, the
TDSAT issued an order granting us interim relief, pending a final determination of our case, directing the DoT to (i) not issue the spectrum that
has been earmarked to us to anyone else and (ii) not forfeit or appropriate the payment that we made for the spectrum. On October 10, 2011, one
of our subsidiaries received a letter from the DoT offering to issue it a license that would cover all of India, including the four regions for which
we won spectrum at the June 2010 auction, assuming that the subsidiary met certain requirements by November 9, 2011. On October 18, 2011,
the subsidiary submitted to the DoT a letter accepting the DoT's offer, requesting issuance of a license as soon as possible after certain
requirements are met, and stating that upon issuance of the license, our three other subsidiaries would merge into the subsidiary that had been
granted a license. On October 19, 2011, the DoT filed a reply to our September 27, 2011 petition with the TDSAT. In its reply, the DoT stated
that upon issuance of a license, our subsidiary could apply for assignment of the spectrum, and at that time, the DoT would decide whether to
grant the requested assignment and whether our applications for licenses were timely filed in accordance with its rules. On October 20, 2011, the
TDSAT conducted a second hearing on our case. At the conclusion of the hearing, the TDSAT ordered the DoT to clarify the aforementioned
statements in its October 19, 2011 reply in light of its October 10, 2011 offer. The TDSAT scheduled another hearing for November 8, 2011.
24