Qualcomm 2012 Annual Report Download - page 30

We believe that our facilities will be suitable and adequate for the present purposes and that the productive capacity in facilities that are not
under construction is substantially utilized. In the future, we may need to purchase, build or lease additional facilities to meet the requirements
projected in our long-term business plan.
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 was 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. The appeals court affirmed the ITC’s orders, and on November 28, 2011, the U.S.
Supreme Court denied our petition for review. On January 18, 2012, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the district court in the Eastern District
of Texas lifted the stay and ordered that the case be moved to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On March
1, 2012, that court consolidated the case with an earlier-filed lawsuit filed by Tessera against multiple parties, including some of our
semiconductor chip package suppliers. Trial is scheduled for April 7, 2014. Tessera may continue to seek alleged past damages in the district
court, but it cannot obtain 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. MicroUnity currently alleges that
certain of our Snapdragon products infringe 10 of its patents, and seeks unspecified damages and injunctive and other relief. The court
consolidated the actions in May 2011. Trial is scheduled for June 3, 2013.
MOSAID Technologies Incorporated v. Dell, Inc. et al.: On March 16, 2011, MOSAID filed a complaint against Atheros Communications,
Inc., which we acquired in May 2011 and was renamed Qualcomm Atheros, Inc. (Qualcomm Atheros), and 32 other entities in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging that certain of Atheros’ WiFi products infringe six MOSAID patents. MOSAID seeks
unspecified damages and injunctive and other relief. The case is in the discovery phase. On March 28, 2012, Qualcomm Atheros and the other
defendants filed a motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. A decision on that motion is pending. A claim construction
hearing is scheduled for April 16, 2013, and trial is scheduled for January 8, 2014.
ParkerVision, Inc. v. QUALCOMM Incorporated: On July 20, 2011, ParkerVision filed a complaint against us in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida alleging that certain of our products infringe seven of its patents alleged to cover direct-conversion (or
Zero-IF/ZIF) receivers. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and injunctive and other relief. On February 28, 2012, ParkerVision filed an
amended complaint dropping two patents from the case and adding one new patent. The parties have motions pending challenging the
sufficiency of certain claims in the opposing party ’ s pleadings. The parties also have motions pending addressing discovery disputes. A claim
construction hearing was held on August 10, 2012, but the court has not yet issued a claim construction order. Discovery is scheduled to close on
November 30, 2012, and trial is scheduled to begin on August 5, 2013.
Icera Complaint to the European Commission: On June 7, 2010, the European Commission (the Commission) notified and provided us with
a redacted copy of a complaint filed with the Commission by Icera, Inc. alleging that we have engaged in anticompetitive activity. We were
asked by the Commission to submit a preliminary response to the portions of the complaint disclosed to it, and we submitted our response in July
2010. On October 19, 2011, the Commission notified us that we should provide to the Commission additional documents and information. On
January 16, 2012, we provided additional documents and information in response to that request. We continue to cooperate fully with the
Commission’s preliminary investigation.
Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) Complaint: On January 4, 2010, the KFTC issued a written decision finding that we had violated
South Korean law by offering certain discounts and rebates for purchases of its CDMA chips and for including in certain agreements language
requiring the continued payment of royalties after all licensed patents have expired. The KFTC levied a fine, which we paid in the second quarter
of fiscal 2010. We are appealing that decision in the Korean courts.
Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) Complaint: The JFTC received unspecified complaints alleging that our business practices are, in
some way, a violation of Japanese law. On September 29, 2009, the JFTC issued a cease and desist order concluding that our Japanese licensees
were forced to cross-license patents to us on a royalty-
free basis and were forced to accept a provision under which they agreed not to assert their
essential patents against our other licensees who made a similar commitment in their license agreements with us. The cease and desist order
seeks to require us to modify our existing
24