Confirm favorite deletion?
Civil Procedure Keyed to Babcock
Qualcomm Inc v. Broadcom Corp.
Citation:2008 WL 66932 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2008)
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Plaintiff Qualcomm sued Defendant Broadcom for patent infringement on two of Qualcomm’s patents. Defendant Broadcom answered alleging the affirmative response that the patents were unenforceable due to waiver. Defendant Broadcom argued that waiver was based on Plaintiff Qualcomm’s participation in the Joint Video Team (JVT) in 2002 and the beginning of 2003. Plaintiff Qualcomm’s participation in the JVT would have made its suit null. Plaintiff Qualcomm denied any involvement in the JVT before December 2003 and claimed it had no documentation or evidence relating to its involvement prior to then. During depositions, Qualcomm representatives again denied the company’s involvement in the JVT despite Defendant Broadcom producing December 2002 communication to a Qualcomm email address suggesting Qualcomm was involved in the JVT. When preparing its witnesses for trial, an attorney for Plaintiff Qualcomm found 21 emails on an employee’s computer that were addressed to JVT email groups, but the attorney did not inform Defendant Broadcom’s attorneys of his finding. This information was later revealed during cross-examination. The jury found in favor of Defendant Broadcom with respect to Plaintiff Qualcomm’s waiver. After trial Qualcomm’s attorneys found 46,000 electronic documents directly related to the case and that basically confirmed Qualcomm’s involvement in the JVT earlier than December 2003 just as defendant Broadcom contended. The court found that Qualcomm actively concealed the electronic documents during discovery and trial and thereafter awarded attorneys fees and a final fee award of $8,568,633.24 to Defendant Broadcom.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.