In the pre-trial going on of the patent lawsuits of Apple and Qualcomm, Qualcomm’s legal team made a slip – it failed to add an important part to its motion and tried to correct its blunder at a later time, according to FOSS Patents.
In a ruling on September 4, it was said that in July Apple had gestured to strike portions of 12 expert reports supplied by Qualcomm, having claimed that the experts “improperly opined” on transgression. The original complaint requested declaratory verdict on flaw and non-infringement of nine Qualcomm patents.
Initially, Qualcomm responded to Apple’s motion by unexpectedly declining to put forth the compulsory counterclaims of the breach, a move that was quite limiting for Qualcomm. By and by when Qualcomm’s legal team attempted to oppose Apple’s motion to make the jury hear the complaints of its experts in toto, Apple’s legal team motioned to obstruct such an alteration. Apple’s motion partly succeeded making Qualcomm unable to use some of the testimony at trial unless it appeals with success.
Magistrate Judge Mitchell Dembin of the United States District Court of the Southern District of California is advising the sections focused on the “standard-essential” nature and value of the patents. The more intense the infringement are, the more essential the patents. Judge Dembin addressing the issue of export reports conflicting with Qualcomm’s initial decision to not counterclaim Apple, declared that “Qualcomm will be held accountable for the consequences of its tactical decisions.” He added that “To the extent that Qualcomm claims they have disclosed in discovery their views regarding infringement and, consequently, there is no surprise and no prejudice, is unavailing. Rules are rules and tactical decisions have consequences.”
Elegant Themes - The most popular WordPress theme in the world and the ultimate WordPress Page Builder. Get a 30-day money-back guarantee. Get it for Free
Other than this patent infringement suit relating to Apple and its intellectual property, Qualcomm is also involved in another related legal battle associated with the denial of the motion of prosecutors in a class action suit to hinder Qualcomm from obtaining a U.S. International Trade Commission exclusion order, one that would affect the import of iPhones with Intel modems.