Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01958/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01958-14/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

05cv1958-B (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff,

v.

BROADCOM CORPORATION,

Defendant. 

BROADCOM CORPORATION,

Counterclaimant,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Counterdefendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 05cv1958-B (BLM)

ORDER DENYING BROADCOM

CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

[Doc. No. 820]

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:05-cv-01958-B-BLM Document 830 Filed 07/07/08 Page 1 of 6
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

-2- 05cv1958-B (BLM)

In the motion presently before the Court, Broadcom Corporation

(“Broadcom”) asks this Court to reconsider its ruling regarding the

Court’s jurisdiction pending Qualcomm Incorporated’s (“Qualcomm”)

appeal. Doc. No. 820.

On May 5, 2008, Qualcomm filed a notice of appeal of Judge

Brewster’s March 5, 2008 “Order Remanding in Part Order of Magistrate

Court re Motion for Sanctions Dated 1/07/08" (“Remand Order”). Doc. No.

790. On May 19, 2008, attorneys Batchelder, Mammen, Leung and Patch

filed notices of cross appeal. Doc. Nos. 797, 798. On its own motion,

this Court issued an order on May 29, 2008, vacating all pending hearing

dates because the Court concluded that, as a result of the appeal and

cross appeals, jurisdiction has been transferred from this Court to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Doc. No. 812.

On June 6, 2008, Broadcom filed a motion for reconsideration of

that order. Doc. No. 820. Qualcomm filed a timely response [Doc. No.

825], Responding Attorney Young filed a statement of non-opposition

[Doc. No. 826], and Responding Attorneys Batchelder, Mammen and Leung

jointly filed a statement of non-opposition [Doc. No. 821]. Broadcom

filed a reply on June 27, 2008 [Doc. No. 829], and the Court took the

matter under submission pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) [Doc. No.

828]. 

Having reviewed the briefing submitted, and for the reasons set

forth below, Broadcom’s motion is DENIED.

DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Broadcom brings its

motion pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

and Civil Local Rule 7.1(i)(1). Broadcom Mem. at 4. Rule 60 provides

that “[o]n motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its

Case 3:05-cv-01958-B-BLM Document 830 Filed 07/07/08 Page 2 of 6
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 The Advisory Committee Notes following Rule 60 clarify that “[t]he addition

of the qualifying word ‘final’ emphasizes the character of the judgments, orders or

proceedings from which Rule 60(b) affords relief; and hence interlocutory judgments are

not brought within the restrictions of the rule, but rather they are left subject to

the complete power of the court rendering them to afford such relief from them as

justice requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 Advisory Committee Notes (1946 Amendment).

-3- 05cv1958-B (BLM)

legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the

following reasons ... mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable

neglect...” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). Civil Local Rule 7.1(i)(1)

applies where a party has previously applied for relief and seeks

reconsideration of the court’s order denying relief. CivLR 7.1(i)(1).

Neither rule is applicable to this case because this Court’s May 29,

2008 order was not a final, appealable order1 nor was it issued

following application by either party. However, because the Court

appreciates that the federal and local rules do not provide a clear

procedure for seeking reconsideration of a court’s sua sponte order, the

Court will exercise its inherent authority to reconsider its own orders

before they become final, see U.S. v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th

Cir. 2000) (confirming that district court has inherent jurisdiction and

authority to modify, alter or revoke its own orders before they become

final, “absent some applicable rule or statute to the contrary”), and

consider Broadcom’s motion.

Broadcom argues that this Court retains jurisdiction to proceed

with the remand proceedings for two reasons. First, Broadcom contends

that Qualcomm’s notice of appeal was defective because it referred to

a non-appealable interlocutory order. Broadcom Mem. at 3. Second,

Broadcom submits that Qualcomm forfeited its right to appellate review

of Judge Brewster’s March 5, 2008 Remand Order because Qualcomm did not

Case 3:05-cv-01958-B-BLM Document 830 Filed 07/07/08 Page 3 of 6
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

2 As of the date of this order, this Court has not been notified of any

ruling by the Federal Circuit on Broadcom’s emergency motion. 

-4- 05cv1958-B (BLM)

timely object to this Court’s sanctions order, the review of which

resulted in Judge Brewster’s Remand Order. Id. at 4. For these

reasons, Broadcom requests that the Court vacate its May 29, 2008 order

and resume the remand proceedings. Id. at 3-5.

The Court has considered all of the briefing and legal argument

submitted, including the briefing filed with the Federal Circuit

addressing Broadcom Corporation’s Emergency Motion to Dismiss Appeal of

Qualcomm Incorporated (copies of which were attached to the pleadings

filed in this Court).2 As both parties acknowledge, 

Where the deficiency in a notice of appeal, by reason of

untimeliness, lack of essential recitals, or reference to a

non-appealable order, is clear to the district court, it may

disregard the purported notice of appeal and proceed with the

case, knowing that it has not been deprived of jurisdiction.

If the district court is in doubt as to whether the notice of

appeal is inoperative by reason of some such defect, it may

decline to act further until the purported appellee obtains

dismissal of the appeal in the court of appeals.

Ruby v. Sec’y of U. S. Navy, 365 F.2d 385, 389 (9th Cir. 1966) (emphasis

added). While this Court has doubts about whether the Federal Circuit

will entertain Qualcomm’s appeal of the Remand Order, it is not entirely

clear that the Remand Order was non-appealable. In light of the unusual

posture of this case, the Federal Circuit may decide that the Remand

Order was final as to Qualcomm or that appellate jurisdiction is

appropriate under the collateral order doctrine described in Cohen v.

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). Because uncertainty

exists as to whether Qualcomm’s notice of appeal is deficient and

because the issue is pending in the Federal Circuit, the Court declines

to act further until the Federal Circuit has ruled. Ruby, 365 F.2d at

Case 3:05-cv-01958-B-BLM Document 830 Filed 07/07/08 Page 4 of 6
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

3 The issue of the whether or not the self-defense privilege applied was not

squarely addressed in this Court’s sanctions order because the Court previously had

ruled on that issue, finding that the exception did not apply [see Doc. No. 669].

-5- 05cv1958-B (BLM)

389. 

In regard to Broadcom’s second argument, Broadcom is correct that

“a party who fails to file timely objections to a magistrate judge’s

nondispositive order with the district judge to whom the case is

assigned forfeits its right to appellate review of that order.” Simpson

v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996). However,

the reality of the proceedings in this case, again, are not as

procedurally clear as Broadcom suggests. As Qualcomm explains more

thoroughly in the response it filed with the Federal Circuit, Qualcomm

admits that it did not have objections to this Court’s order sanctioning

Qualcomm and six outside attorneys and, therefore, did not file

objections with the district judge. Qualcomm Resp., Ex. A at 9.

However, in response to the outside attorneys’ objections to being

denied the opportunity to submit privileged materials as part of their

defense, Judge Brewster found that the self-defense exception to

Qualcomm’s attorney-client privilege applied.3 See Doc. No. 744. Only

then did Qualcomm have concerns about how the Remand Order would be

applied and whether Qualcomm would be required to disclose attorneyclient privileged documents. Qualcomm Resp., Ex. A at 10, 12 n.7. In

light of these facts, this Court cannot say with absolute certainty that

Qualcomm was required to have filed objections with the district judge

before appealing and, thus, forfeited its right to appeal, Simpson, 77

F.3d at 1174, or that it is clear that this Court has not been deprived

of jurisdiction, Ruby, 365 F.2d at 389. 

Case 3:05-cv-01958-B-BLM Document 830 Filed 07/07/08 Page 5 of 6
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

-6- 05cv1958-B (BLM)

Furthermore, it has long been established that the rule that the

district court is divested of jurisdiction once a notice of appeal is

filed is judge-made and that “its purpose is to promote judicial economy

and avoid the confusion that would ensue from having the same issues

before two courts simultaneously.” Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v.

Southwest Marine Inc., 242 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2001); Masalosalo

v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 718 F.2d 955, 956 (9th Cir. 1983); 20 James Wm.

Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, § 303.32[1] (3d ed. 2000) (same); Gilda

Industries, Inc. v. U.S., 511 F.3d 1348, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (same).

In this case, Judge Brewster already entered a final judgment, which

Qualcomm has appealed. See Doc. Nos. 595, 621. The outcome of that

appeal may impact the necessity for, or scope of, the remand proceedings

before this Court. Therefore, this Court finds that judicial economy

favors not departing from the general rule that a notice of appeal

divests the district court of jurisdiction to proceed. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Broadcom’s Motion for

Reconsideration and declines to proceed with the remand proceedings at

this time.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 7, 2008

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

COPY TO:

HONORABLE RUDI M. BREWSTER

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

ALL COUNSEL

Case 3:05-cv-01958-B-BLM Document 830 Filed 07/07/08 Page 6 of 6