19-02-23 Apple Position Statement

Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 884-1 Filed 02/23/19 PageID.
99503 Page 1 of 14
EXHIBIT A
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 884-1 Filed 02/23/19 PageID.99504 Page 2 of 14
1 Juanita R. Brooks (SBN 75934) brooks@fr.com

Seth M. Sproul, SBN 217711, sproul@fr.com
2
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
3 12390 El Camino Real
San Diego, CA 92130
4
Telephone: (619) 678-5070 / Facsimile: (619) 678-5099
5
6 Ruffin B. Cordell (DC Bar # 445801; Admitted Pro Hac Vice) cordell@fr.com
Lauren A. Degnan (DC Bar # 452421; Admitted Pro Hac Vice) degnan@fr.com
7 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
8 1000 Maine Avenue, S.W., Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20024
9 Telephone: (202) 783-5070 / Facsimile: (202) 783-2331
10
William A. Isaacson (DC Bar # 414788; Admitted Pro Hac Vice) wisaacson@bsfllp.com
11 Karen L. Dunn (DC Bar No. 1002520; Admitted Pro Hac Vice) kdunn@bsfllp.com
12 BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
1401 New York Avenue, N.W.
13 Washington, DC 20005
14 Telephone: (202) 237-2727 / Facsimile: (202) 237-6131
15 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Apple Inc.

16
(Counsel for the CMs and Additional Counsel listed below signature line)
17
18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
19 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

20
Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD
21 IN RE: [Consolidated with 3:17-CV-01010-GPC-MDD]
22 QUALCOMM LITIGATION,
EXHIBIT A: APPLE INC. AND THE CMS’
23 POSITION STATEMENT FOR PROPOSED
JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND VERDICT
24
FORM
25
Judge: Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel
26 Date: March 28, 2019
27 Time: 1:30 p.m.
Courtroom: 2D
28
1 Pursuant to the Court’s December 19, 2018 Order, Federal Rule of Civil
2 Procedure 51, and Local Rule 51.1, Apple Inc. (“Apple”); FIH Mobile Ltd. and Hon
3 Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd., (together, “Foxconn”), Pegatron Corporation,
4 Wistron Corporation, and Compal Electronics, Inc. (collectively, “the CMs”) submit
5 their proposed jury instructions as Exhibits D and F to the joint submission, and
6 their proposed verdict form as Exhibit H.
7 Below, Apple and the CMs briefly outline their approach to their proposed
8 jury instructions and verdict form as compared to Qualcomm’s, and also provide
9 general objections with respect to Qualcomm’s approach.
10 I. Apple and the CMs’ Approach to the Jury Instructions and Verdict
11 Form
12 Jury Instructions Organizational Scheme
13 Apple and the CMs have organized their instructions so that the jury is first
14 instructed on antitrust issues. The jury will then be instructed on issues related to
15 FRAND, followed by general breach of contract and tortious interference claims.
16 This organization reflects the issues that will feature most prominently at trial.
17 There can be little dispute that this trial will focus predominantly on antitrust and
18 FRAND issues, which are complex and require substantial explanation to the jury.
19 Apple, as plaintiff, will be presenting antitrust evidence first. Accordingly,
20 frontloading these instructions will give the jury the fullest context necessary to
21 understand the issues that they will be addressing during their deliberations.
22 In contrast, Qualcomm prefers to instruct the jury on antitrust issues last.
23 Qualcomm is transparently attempting to de-emphasize antitrust issues. But that
24 makes little sense considering that antitrust issues will be a key focus of trial.
25 Qualcomm also proposes addressing Sherman Act Section 1 issues before Section 2
26 issues, whereas Apple and the CMs propose addressing Section 2 issues first. Apple
27 and the CMs propose that it makes the most sense to address Section 2 issues first
EXHIBIT A: APPLE & CMS’ POSITION STATEMENT FOR -1- CASE NO. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD
PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS
1 because Apple and the CMs both have claims arising under Section 2, whereas only
2 the CMs have claims arising under Section 1. It makes more sense to first address
3 the claims that apply to all parties, and then move on to the claims that are asserted
4 by only one of the claimants.
5 Qualcomm also proposes addressing FRAND issues as part of the larger
6 breach of contract section, as opposed to a discrete section in the jury instructions.
7 This approach is an obvious effort to de-emphasize the importance and relevance of
8 FRAND, which is both an independent issue and a key issue relevant to multiple
9 claims and defenses in this case. E.g., Apple Claims LXI, LXII, LXIII; CMs
10 Counterclaims I–III, V–IX; Qualcomm Counterclaims II, IV. For example, the CMs
11 have brought an independent claim that Qualcomm breached its FRAND
12 commitments; Apple and the CMs also contend that Qualcomm’s anticompetitive
13 conduct includes its evasion of its FRAND obligations and collection of above-
14 FRAND royalties. Moreover, FRAND is a complex issue, which requires
15 instructions for the jury on a number of standard-setting, patent, and royalty issues,
16 as demonstrated by Instruction Nos. 52-61, which cover SSOs, patents, and related
17 issues such as infringement, the FRAND commitment, apportionment, and smallest
18 salable unit. It would be confusing to intersperse FRAND instructions within the
19 breach of contract section, when they have nothing to do with the majority of the
20 breach of contract claims in this case, such as the claims for breach of the BCPA
21 and the 2013 Statement of Work.
22 Apple and the CMs also object to Qualcomm’s presentation of affirmative
23 defenses. The parties agree that the elements of affirmative defenses should be
24 recited only once so as to avoid redundancy. However, the parties disagree as to
25 when the jury should be instructed on the various affirmative defenses that the
26 parties contend apply to the various claims. Apple and the CMs maintain that each
27 instruction as to a cause of action should be followed by the applicable affirmative
28 defenses, so that the jury is informed immediately of the relevant affirmative
EXHIBIT A: APPLE & CMS’ POSITION STATEMENT FOR - 2- CASE NO. 3:17-CV-00108 GPC MDD
1 defenses. To that end, Apple and the CMs have proposed including a list of the
2 various affirmative defenses asserted by the parties after each cause of action, or
3 categories of causes of action. E.g. Instruction No. 68.1 Qualcomm, by contrast,
4 includes a narrative statement at the end of each affirmative defense instruction
5 describing the causes of action to which that affirmative defense is asserted. This
6 approach is confusing, as it does not give the jury a clear understanding of the
7 different affirmative defenses that are asserted with respect to each cause of action.
8 It may lead the jury to overlook an applicable affirmative defense, or otherwise
9 confuse the jury.2
10 Verdict Form Organizational Scheme
11 Apple and the CMs’ proposed verdict form follows the same organizational
12 approach as Apple and the CMs’ jury instructions: it begins with antitrust and
13
14 1
Prior to exchanging draft proposed jury instructions on February 1, 2019, the
parties agreed that they did not need to draft proposed instructions for affirmative
15 defenses asserted by the other party. Accordingly, after receiving Qualcomm’s
proposed jury instructions, Apple and the CMs updated their instructions to include
16 affirmative defenses asserted by Qualcomm when such defenses were included in
Qualcomm’s proposed jury instructions. On the afternoon that instructions were due
17 to be filed, Qualcomm provided Apple and the CMs with a supplemental instruction
on the defense of unjust enrichment. As a result, Apple and the CMs were not able
18 to prepare inserts to its instructions for this defense. As reflected in Apple and the
CMs’ objections, Apple and the CMs maintain that Qualcomm’s instruction on this
19 defense should not be given, but Apple and the CMs are prepared to create
additional inserts for this defense. Qualcomm also raised an objection, less than
20 three hours before the filing deadline—and after having Apple and the CMs’
instructions for weeks—that Apple and the CMs’ instructions do not accurately
21 reflect Qualcomm’s defenses. If Qualcomm had raised this issue in a timely
manner, Apple and the CMs would have been willing to discuss and amend their
22 instructions to address additional defenses asserted by Qualcomm. Apple and the
CMs made a good faith effort to reflect the defenses contained in Qualcomm’s
23 proposed instructions, and any omission of any defenses was not intended to
prejudice Qualcomm’s ability to assert them. Apple and the CMs will confer with
24 Qualcomm regarding this issue prior to the parties’ anticipated update on March 14,
2019. Relatedly, Apple and the CMs respectfully reserve their rights to modify their
25 proposals, objections, or assert additional objections, as necessary.
26 2
Apple and the CMs, in their objections, do not focus on the question of whether
Qualcomm’s claims or defenses are properly asserted. The inclusion of a claim or
27 defense asserted by Qualcomm in Apple and the CMs’ jury instructions or verdict
form, or the lack of objection to the fact that a certain claim or defense, is not a
28 concession that such a claim or defense is properly asserted by Qualcomm.
1 related Unfair Competition Law claims, followed by FRAND claims, followed by

2 breach of contract and tortious interference claims. As explained above, this
3 approach will direct the jury to the overarching issues that will be the focus of this
4 trial before the jury turns to contract-by-contract disputes. Apple and the CMs have
5 also laid out a logical order for the parties’ contract disputes. The parties’ SULA
6 claims, several of which are related to antitrust and FRAND claims, are presented
7 first among contract claims. They are followed by Qualcomm’s claims for breach of
8 the MSAs between Qualcomm and the CMs, which are based on Qualcomm’s
9 SULA claims. No. 17-cv-1010-GPC-MDD, Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 147-149, 171-173, 194-196,
10 219-221. Apple and the CMs’ verdict form then turns to the remaining claims
11 between Apple and Qualcomm under the BCPA, under the 2013 Statement of Work,
12 for tortious interference, and under the STA Assignment Agreement. Within each
13 issue area, Apple and the CMs have ordered causes of action logically: for example,
14 the antitrust section begins with the Sherman Act Section 2 claims asserted by both
15 Apple and the CMs before turning to the CMs’ separate Section 1 and Cartwright
16 Act claims, and the SULA section addresses claims concerning the enforceability of
17 Qualcomm’s SULAs before addressing claims for breach. Where there is no clear
18 logical order (such as for cross-claims for breach of contract) the claims asserted by
19 Apple and the CMs are listed first because Apple is the plaintiff in this case and the
20 CMs will be presenting their case in tandem with Apple.3
21 Qualcomm’s proposed verdict form, on the other hand, front-loads
22 Qualcomm’s breach of contract and tortious interference claims and relegates the
23 parties’ antitrust and FRAND claims to the end of the verdict form. Apple and the
24 CMs object to that ordering of the verdict form, which is illogical and in many
25 instances presents Qualcomm’s counterclaims before Apple’s claims.
26
27
28 3
Similarly, Apple and the CMs, not Qualcomm, should be listed first where the
verdict form requires the jury to identify the prevailing party on a claim or issue.
1 Qualcomm Is Incorrect that Apple and the CMs’ Jury Instructions

2 Are Argumentative
3 During the meet and confer process, Qualcomm repeatedly claimed that
4 Apple and the CMs’ instructions are argumentative. Qualcomm appears to contend
5 that any instruction that informs the jury as to the nature of Apple and the CMs’
6 claims is argumentative. For example, Qualcomm expressed the view that the
7 following statement was argumentative: “The CMs allege that they were injured by
8 Qualcomm’s unlawful monopolization. Apple contends that it suffers a significant
9 threat of injury due to Qualcomm’s unlawful monopolization.” But this statement is
10 nothing more than a statement of Apple and the CMs’ allegations. Qualcomm
11 apparently believes the jury should receive instructions without the context of the
12 parties’ claims. Apple and the CMs disagree. In light of the many competing
13 claims in this case, it is appropriate for the jury instructions to reference the parties’
14 claims.
15 Qualcomm Attempts To Mislead the Jury About Patent Issues
16 Patents and patent issues are inextricably tied to the FRAND-related claims
17 and defenses in this case, but Qualcomm refuses to acknowledge the relevance of
18 patent law, going so far as to propose a one-sided, misleading characterization of
19 this case: “[T]his is not a patent case. . . . This is a licensing contract dispute.”
20 Qualcomm’s failure to comply with its FRAND commitments for standard essential
21 patents (SEPs) is implicated in several claims and defenses that the jury will decide.
22 Apple and the CMs therefore believe that it is appropriate to instruct the jury on the
23 legal concepts underlying the issues that will be presented to them. Qualcomm’s
24 FRAND commitments require Qualcomm to charge only fair, reasonable, and non-
25 discriminatory (FRAND) royalties for its SEPs. The measure of patent royalties is
26 governed by substantive patent law, which makes clear that patent owners are not
27 entitled to royalties for patents that are not infringed or for patents that are invalid,
28 exhausted, unenforceable, or expired.
1 Apple and the CMs propose instructions on patent issues based on model
2 instructions from sources that are known to provide easy-to-understand instructions
3 that are well-grounded in patent law, including instructions on the established
4 framework for assessing the FRAND commitment. When no model instruction
5 exists for a specific patent issue, like patent exhaustion, Apple and the CMs have
6 proposed an instruction that is grounded in the case law, with appropriate citation to
7 the controlling legal authority.
8 By contrast, Qualcomm omits necessary instructions on patent issues and
9 improperly characterizes others. Qualcomm incorrectly argues that patent
10 exhaustion and patent invalidity are only defenses to patent infringement and asserts
11 that these concepts are not relevant in this case because Qualcomm is not alleging
12 patent infringement. Qualcomm ignores that several claims and defenses rely on the
13 patent exhaustion doctrine.4 In the words of Qualcomm’s counsel: “Exhaustion
14 will absolutely, undoubtedly, be part of this trial.” 10-26-2018 Hr’g Tr. at 33:16-19.
15 Furthermore, because Qualcomm’s patent licensing practices are at issue in this
16 case, the instructions that relate to patents and the FRAND commitment should be
17 provided to the jury without commentary suggesting that they are not relevant to the
18 issues the jury will decide.
19 It Is Appropriate To Include Advisory Jury Instructions and To
20 Include Advisory Jury Claims in the Verdict Form
21 Apple and the CMs’ proposed jury instructions include instructions on issues
22 that Apple and the CMs contend are appropriate for an advisory jury. Those causes
23 of action are also included in Apple and the CMs’ proposed verdict form. Apple
24
4
25 See, e.g., CMs’ Count I (Violation of Sherman Act § 2), CMs’ Count V (Breach of
Contract – FRAND Commitments), CMs’ Count VIII (Declaration that Qualcomm
26 did not comply with FRAND commitments), Apple’s Affirmative Defense to Count
II (Declaration that SULAs Do Not Violate FRAND), and Apple’s Affirmative
27 Defense to Count IV (Declaratory Judgment that Qualcomm satisfied FRAND
commitments to ETSI with respect to Apple).
28
1 and the CMs requested an advisory jury as part of the Proposed Final Pretrial Order.
2 An advisory jury is appropriate here because it would promote efficiency, reduce
3 juror confusion, and aid the Court in adjudicating numerous interrelated legal claims
4 and defenses.5 Because this case indisputably involves at least some jury claims and
5 defenses, there is no question that a jury will be empaneled. Instructing this jury to
6 consider all claims and defenses, rather than a subset thereof, will aid the jury. This
7 approach is particularly sensible where, as here, there is substantial factual overlap
8 between the jury and nonjury claims. For example, Apple and the CMs both
9 contend that Qualcomm engaged in monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the
10 Sherman Act (Apple Count LXIII; CMs Count I). Only the CMs’ claim is triable to
11 a jury as of right because the CMs—and not Apple—are seeking damages from
12 Qualcomm. Apple seeks only injunctive relief under Section 16 of the Clayton Act.
13 Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 133 (1969)
14 (recognizing federal courts “exercising the traditional equitable powers extended to
15 them by” § 16 (emphasis added)); In re Multidistrict Vehicle Air Pollution M.D.C.
16 No. 31, 481 F.2d 122, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1973) (referencing the “equitable protection
17 under” § 16 (emphasis added)).
18 Qualcomm has failed to provide the Court with any proposed advisory jury
19 instructions, and has not included advisory claims in its proposed verdict form.
20 Qualcomm has been on notice since November 2018 that Apple and the CMs seek
21 an advisory jury, but did not provide draft instructions on issues appropriate for an
22 advisory jury when the parties first exchanged draft instructions on February 1,
23 2019. Apple and the CMs provided Qualcomm with draft advisory jury instructions
24
25 5
Qualcomm opposes the use of an advisory jury and has taken the position that Rule
39 requires Apple and the CMs to formally move for an advisory jury. The plain
26 language of Rule 39 requires no such motion—Rule 39 provides that an advisory
jury may be empaneled by the Court “by motion or on its own.” Nonetheless, Apple
27 and the CMs have agreed to file a motion for an advisory jury, and have proposed
that the parties submit a joint brief on the issue. Apple and the CMs are prepared to
28 provide their opening position to Qualcomm on February 23, 2019, and are awaiting
Qualcomm’s position on the briefing and submission schedule.
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 884-1 Filed 02/23/19 PageID.99512 Page 10 of
14
1 on that date and included advisory issues in their draft verdict form. Apple and the
2 CMs subsequently informed Qualcomm that Apple and the CMs would be
3 submitting advisory jury instructions by the Court’s deadline, and requested that
4 Qualcomm provide advisory jury instructions at risk of waiver of its right to do so.
5 Qualcomm provided draft supplemental advisory jury instructions on February 21,
6 2019 at 2:49 AM Eastern Time, which Apple and the CMs spent significant time
7 reviewing. Qualcomm subsequently withdrew those supplemental advisory jury
8 instructions the night of February 21, 2019, informing Apple and the CMs that it did
9 not intend to submit them. Qualcomm’s failure to submit proposed competing
10 advisory jury instructions is prejudicial to Apple and the CMs, and the Court should
11 not permit Qualcomm to later submit proposed instructions if the Court empanels an
12 advisory jury.6 Similarly, Apple and the CMs object to Qualcomm’s proposed
13 verdict form to the extent it does not include claims that would be addressed by an
14 advisory jury, and Qualcomm has waived any right to propose a verdict form on
15 those issues.
16 Claims Triable to Jury as of Right
17 The parties disagree as to whether certain claims and defenses are triable as of
18 right to a jury or to the Court (and Apple and the CMs seek an advisory jury on the
19 latter claims). Apple and the CMs have proposed that these issues be addressed in
20 separate briefing that will be submitted to the Court in connection with Apple and
21 the CMs’ advisory jury request. For example, Apple and the CMs seek an advisory
22
23 6
Apple and the CMs emphasize that the fact that they do not seek an advisory jury
on certain claims, defenses, or issues not triable to a jury as of right is not a waiver
24 of these claims or defenses. Apple and the CMs’ position is that certain issues are
highly legal and not appropriate for an advisory jury to consider, such as issues of
25 collateral estoppel, standing, and justiciability. Likewise, although Apple and the
CMs ask the jury to address issues related to declarations sought by both parties
26 (such as whether the SULAs are unenforceable as against public policy, and whether
Qualcomm has complied with its FRAND obligations) Apple and the CMs ask that
27 the Court instruct the jury only to make certain findings related to these requested
declarations. In short, the issues on which Apple and the CMs seek an advisory jury
28 are the issues reflected in their proposed jury instructions.
14
1 jury on issues related to Apple’s Counts III (Violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 1671),
2 LX (Declaratory Judgment that Section 4.4 of the STA Assignment Agreement is
3 unenforceable), LXI (Declaratory Judgment that SULAs are Unenforceable), LXII
4 (Section 2 claim), LXIII (Unfair Competition Law), and portions of Apple’s Count
5 IV (Declaratory Judgment Regarding the BCPA); CMs’ Counts IV (Unfair
6 Competition law), VII (Promissory estoppel), XII (Declaration that SULAs are
7 unenforceable as against public policy), and IX (Waiver); and Qualcomm’s Counts
8 II (Declaration that SULAs do not violate competition law) and VIII (unjust
9 enrichment) as asserted against Apple. Apple and the CMs also seek an advisory
10 jury onvarious affirmative defenses, such as: laches, estoppel, unclean hands,
11 liquidated damages, unenforceability as against public policy, unconscionability,
12 mistake, ratification, acquiescence, consent, and the litigation privilege. Of these
13 claims and defenses, Qualcomm contends that the following are jury triable as of
14 right, and not for an advisory jury: Qualcomm’s Counts II (Declaration that SULAs
15 do not violate competition law) and VIII (unjust enrichment) as asserted against
16 Apple; CMs’ Count IX (waiver), and the defenses of ratification, consent,
17 acquiescence, waiver, mistake, and unjust enrichment.
18 The Verdict Form Should Include Affirmative Defenses
19 Apple and the CMs’ proposed verdict form includes affirmative defenses;
20 Qualcomm’s does not. Including jury questions on affirmative defenses will
21 simplify the decision-making process for the jury. Under Apple and the CMs’
22 approach, the jury will be able to consider whether the party asserting a cause of
23 action has proven its claim and then separately consider whether any affirmative
24 defenses have been proven. Qualcomm’s approach, where those decisions are
25 combined, is likely to be confusing for the jury given the number of different claims
26 and affirmative defenses being presented. Verdict form questions regarding
27 affirmative defenses will also give the Court a clearer assessment of the jury’s
28 findings on advisory issues.
14
1 II. Conclusion
2 For all the above reasons, as well as the reasons set forth in Apple and the
3 CMs’ objections, Apple and the CMs maintain that the Court should adopt Apple
4 and the CMs’ proposed jury instructions and proposed verdict form.
5
6 Dated: February 23, 2019 Respectfully submitted,
7
By: /s/ William Isaacson
8 Juanita R. Brooks, SBN 75934, brooks@fr.com
9 Seth M. Sproul, SBN 217711, sproul@fr.com
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
10 12390 El Camino Real San Diego, CA 92130
11 Phone: 619-678-5070; Fax: 619-678-5099
12 Ruffin B. Cordell (D.C. Bar No. 445801;

13 pro hac vice), cordell@fr.com
Lauren A. Degnan (D.C. Bar No. 452421;
14 pro hac vice), degnan@fr.com
15 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
1000 Maine Avenue, S.W., Suite 1000
16 Washington, D.C. 20024
17 Phone: 202-783-5070; Fax: 202-783-2331
18 William A. Isaacson (D.C. Bar No. 414788;
19 pro hac vice) wisaacson@bsfllp.com
Karen L. Dunn (D.C. Bar No. 1002520;
20 pro hac vice) kdunn@bsfllp.com
21 Amy J. Mauser (D.C. Bar No. 424065;
pro hac vice) amauser@bsfllp.com
22 Christopher G. Renner (D.C. Bar No. 1025699;
23 pro hac vice) crenner@bsfllp.com
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
24 1401 New York Avenue, N.W.
25 Washington, D.C .20005
Phone: 202-237-2727; Fax: 202-237-6131
26
27 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant
Apple Inc.
28
14
1
2 By: /s/ Jason Lo
Theodore R. Boutrous, Jr., SBN 132099,
3 tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
Richard J. Doren, SBN 124666
4 rdoren@gibsondunn.com
5 Daniel G. Swanson, SBN 116556,
dswanson@gibsondunn.com
6 Michele L. Maryott, SBN 191993
mmaryott@gibsondunn.com
7 Jason C. Lo, SBN 219030,
jlo@gibsondunn.com
8 Jennifer J. Rho, SBN 254312,
9 jrho@gibsondunn.com
Melissa Phan, SBN 266880,
10 mphan@gibsondunn.com
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
11 333 South Grand Avenue
12 Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: (213) 229-7000; Fax: (213) 229-7520
13
Cynthia E. Richman, DC Bar No. 492089,
14 pro hac vice
crichman@gibsondunn.com
15 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
16 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
17 Tel: (202) 955-8500; Fax: (202) 467-0539
18
19 Attorneys for Defendants, Counterclaimants, and
Third-Party Plaintiffs Compal Electronics, Inc., FIH
20 Mobile Ltd., Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd.,
21 Pegatron Corporation, and Wistron Corporation
22 Hugh F. Bangasser, pro hac vice
hugh.bangasser@klgates.com
23 Christopher M. Wyant, pro hac vice
24 chris.wyant@klgates.com
J. Timothy Hobbs, pro hac vice
25 tim.hobbs@klgates.com
K&L GATES LLP
26 925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900
27 Seattle, Washington 98104
Tel: (206) 623-7580; Fax: (206) 370-6371
28
Caitlin C. Blanche, SBN 254109,
14
caitlin.blanche@klgates.com
1 K&L GATES LLP
2 1 Park Plaza Twelfth Floor
Irvine, CA 92614
3 Tel: (949) 253-0900; Fax: (949) 253-0902
4 Attorneys for Defendant, Counterclaimant, and
5 Third-Party Plaintiff Wistron Corporation
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

19-02-23 Apple Position Statement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

19-02-23 Apple Position Statement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 884-1 Filed 02/23/19 PageID.

1 Juanita R. Brooks (SBN 75934) brooks@fr.com

15 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Apple Inc.

19 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 related Unfair Competition Law claims, followed by FRAND claims, followed by

1 Qualcomm Is Incorrect that Apple and the CMs’ Jury Instructions

12 Ruffin B. Cordell (D.C. Bar No. 445801;

You might also like