Broadcom wins a round in patent war with Qualcomm
Broadcom does NOT infringe Qualcomm patents in videocompression, and users of the H.264 standard are probably safe from the Qualcomm patents at issue in this case. However, there is a lesson in reporting. The LA Times, utilizing Bloomberg, reported that the Qualcomm patents were unenforceable. The issue of "inequitable conduct" is equitable, and juries don't decide it, so the Times got the story wrong. There was an advisory verdict, which may influence the judge when he decides the inequitable conduct matter. The San Diego Union Tribune got the story right.
Bloomberg reported on 27 Jan: Broadcom Corp. didn't infringe two patents owned by rival Qualcomm Inc., a federal jury found Friday in the first trial of the companies' dispute over chips used in computers, DVD players and mobile phones.
The patents, for technology to compress high-definition video, are unenforceable because Qualcomm withheld information from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, jurors in San Diego said after six hours of deliberations. But they agreed with Qualcomm that the patents were valid.
Qualcomm, the world's second-biggest maker of mobile- phone chips, was asking for $8.3 million in cash compensation.
(...)
Qualcomm said its patents covered technology needed to comply with an industry standard that allows for transmission of high-quality video over wireless, satellite and Internet connections. Broadcom's chips are used in television set-top boxes, mobile phones and high-definition DVD players.
Qualcomm participated in the group that set the standard, and all members had to agree to license their patents on fair and reasonable terms. As a result, Broadcom contended, Qualcomm didn't have a right to demand a court order and was entitled only to future royalties based on the rate established by the jury for past infringement.
Qualcomm is boosting spending to more than $200 million to litigate patent and other court cases this fiscal year, more than double the amount it spent two years ago, President Steven Altman told analysts Wednesday.
***
Kathryn Balint and David Washburn of the Union Tribune reported:
After just six hours of deliberating, a federal jury found yesterday that chip maker Broadcom did not infringe on two patents held by San Diego-based Qualcomm and determined in two advisory votes that Qualcomm had withheld key information from a standards-making body and the patent office.
(...)
One of the biggest blows to Qualcomm came in the form of advisory votes, sought by the judge, in which the jury questioned Qualcomm's integrity.
In one advisory vote, the jury found “clear and convincing evidence” that Qualcomm had withheld previous scientific studies on video-compression from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office when applying for one of the patents in question. The jury's advisory vote said that the patent is “unenforceable due to Qualcomm's inequitable conduct in the patent application process.”
In the second advisory vote, the jury found that Qualcomm had waived its right to enforce both of the patents in the case, because it had failed to inform a standards-making group that it held patents it thought were key to the H.264 standard that was in development. The standard was developed in 2003 by a group of companies to provide better-quality high-definition video.
The votes on those two issues will be taken under advisement by U.S. District Judge Rudi Brewster, who is presiding over the case in federal court in downtown San Diego and who will ultimately decide those questions.
**Elsewhere in the article, there was a suggestion that Qualcomm had nothing to
lose-->
"There certainly was a significant upside potential for us, but it was all upside, no downside," said Qualcomm executive vice president and general counsel Lou Lupin.
IPBiz notes that if the judge finds inequitable conduct ALL CLAIMS of the patents will be unenforceable against anybody. One might find this a downside risk.
**Followup
As of 11am (eastern) Jan. 28, the LA Times report still says:
The patents, for technology to compress high-definition video, are unenforceable because Qualcomm withheld information from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, jurors in San Diego said after six hours of deliberations. But they agreed with Qualcomm that the patents were valid.
There is no mention of advisory verdicts, or that this issue is not actually resolved.
Bloomberg reported on 27 Jan: Broadcom Corp. didn't infringe two patents owned by rival Qualcomm Inc., a federal jury found Friday in the first trial of the companies' dispute over chips used in computers, DVD players and mobile phones.
The patents, for technology to compress high-definition video, are unenforceable because Qualcomm withheld information from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, jurors in San Diego said after six hours of deliberations. But they agreed with Qualcomm that the patents were valid.
Qualcomm, the world's second-biggest maker of mobile- phone chips, was asking for $8.3 million in cash compensation.
(...)
Qualcomm said its patents covered technology needed to comply with an industry standard that allows for transmission of high-quality video over wireless, satellite and Internet connections. Broadcom's chips are used in television set-top boxes, mobile phones and high-definition DVD players.
Qualcomm participated in the group that set the standard, and all members had to agree to license their patents on fair and reasonable terms. As a result, Broadcom contended, Qualcomm didn't have a right to demand a court order and was entitled only to future royalties based on the rate established by the jury for past infringement.
Qualcomm is boosting spending to more than $200 million to litigate patent and other court cases this fiscal year, more than double the amount it spent two years ago, President Steven Altman told analysts Wednesday.
***
Kathryn Balint and David Washburn of the Union Tribune reported:
After just six hours of deliberating, a federal jury found yesterday that chip maker Broadcom did not infringe on two patents held by San Diego-based Qualcomm and determined in two advisory votes that Qualcomm had withheld key information from a standards-making body and the patent office.
(...)
One of the biggest blows to Qualcomm came in the form of advisory votes, sought by the judge, in which the jury questioned Qualcomm's integrity.
In one advisory vote, the jury found “clear and convincing evidence” that Qualcomm had withheld previous scientific studies on video-compression from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office when applying for one of the patents in question. The jury's advisory vote said that the patent is “unenforceable due to Qualcomm's inequitable conduct in the patent application process.”
In the second advisory vote, the jury found that Qualcomm had waived its right to enforce both of the patents in the case, because it had failed to inform a standards-making group that it held patents it thought were key to the H.264 standard that was in development. The standard was developed in 2003 by a group of companies to provide better-quality high-definition video.
The votes on those two issues will be taken under advisement by U.S. District Judge Rudi Brewster, who is presiding over the case in federal court in downtown San Diego and who will ultimately decide those questions.
**Elsewhere in the article, there was a suggestion that Qualcomm had nothing to
lose-->
"There certainly was a significant upside potential for us, but it was all upside, no downside," said Qualcomm executive vice president and general counsel Lou Lupin.
IPBiz notes that if the judge finds inequitable conduct ALL CLAIMS of the patents will be unenforceable against anybody. One might find this a downside risk.
**Followup
As of 11am (eastern) Jan. 28, the LA Times report still says:
The patents, for technology to compress high-definition video, are unenforceable because Qualcomm withheld information from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, jurors in San Diego said after six hours of deliberations. But they agreed with Qualcomm that the patents were valid.
There is no mention of advisory verdicts, or that this issue is not actually resolved.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 4:20 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home