Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01958/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01958-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 05-CV-1958

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUALCOMM INC.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 05-CV-1958-RMB (BLM)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION ON AMOUNT

OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND OTHER

EXPENSES

[Doc. No. 715]

vs.

BROADCOM CORP.,

Defendant.

On August 6, 2007, the Court granted Defendant Broadcom Corporation’s motion

for exceptional case finding pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 of the patent statute. [# 594] The

Court incorporated its Order on Remedy for Finding of Waiver, which documented

Plaintiff Qualcomm Inc.’s egregious litigation misconduct, into its decision on the

exceptional case finding. [# 593]. The Court found that Broadcom was entitled to recover

all reasonable attorneys’ fees, court costs, expert witness fees, travel expenses, and any

other litigation costs reasonably incurred in this action. The Court instructed Broadcom to

submit its detailed billing statements for review and referred the calculation of the amount

of the award to the Magistrate Judge. Also, the Court entered Judgment in favor of

Broadcom.

Broadcom filed those petitions and sought $8,568,633.24 in attorneys’ fees,

litigation expenses, and expert witness fees as well as prejudgment and post-judgment

interest. Qualcomm did not oppose these requests. The Magistrate Judge issued the Report

and Recommendation on October 29, 2007 and instructed Qualcomm that objections must

be filed by November 13, 2007. No objections were filed. 

Case 3:05-cv-01958-B-BLM Document 717 Filed 12/11/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Broadcom offered the calculation for the prejudgment interest award and Qualcomm

did not object to the dates selected to make that calculation. See Bio-Rad Labs. Inc. v. Nicolet

Instrument Corp., 807 F.2d 964, 967 (Fed. Cir. 1986). 

- 2 - 05-CV-1958

The Court has read and reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation on the amount of fees and expenses and adopts it in full. The “lodestar”

calculations of the number of hours and hourly rates are reasonable and supported by the

submissions and the record of this complex litigation. The litigation costs were distinct

from those taxed by the Clerk of the Court, and were necessary to the defense of the

litigation. Mathis v. Spears, 857 F.2d 749, 757-59 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The Court expressly

authorized reimbursement for expert witnesses and Broadcom has documented those fees. 

Id.

In addition, the Magistrate Judge found inherent equitable power to award

Broadcom prejudgment interest on the $8 million attorneys’ fee award from the date the

complaint was filed to the last day of trial.1

 The Court affirms that finding based upon the

nature and degree of Qualcomm’s bad faith litigation misconduct. Id. at 760-61. 

Postjudgment interest is authorized by statute, and the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation of an interest rate of 4.91% accruing from August 6, 2007. Id. at 759-60.

Conclusion

The Court adopts in its entirety the unopposed Report and Recommendation

Granting Defendant’s Corrected Petition for Attorneys’ and Experts’ Fees, Costs, and

Expenses. The Court awards Broadcom $8,568,633.24 in attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and

litigation costs. The Court awards Broadcom $691,351.85 in prejudgment interest. 

Postjudgment interest shall accrue at a rate of 4.91% from August 6, 2007 until the date of

payment. Qualcomm shall pay this award with an appropriate adjustment for the accrued

post-judgment interest. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 11, 2007

Hon. Rudi M. Brewster

United States Senior District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01958-B-BLM Document 717 Filed 12/11/07 Page 2 of 2