1

FTC’S OPPOSITION TO QUALCOMM’S MOTION

TO SHORTEN TIME

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK

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

Jennifer Milici, D.C. Bar No. 987096

Wesley G. Carson, D.C. Bar No. 1009899

Daniel Matheson, D.C. Bar No. 502490

Mark J. Woodward, D.C. Bar No. 479537

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20580

(202) 326-2912; (202) 326-3496 (fax)

jmilici@ftc.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, a 

Delaware corporation,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK

PLAINTIFF FEDERAL TRADE 

COMMISSION’S OPPOSITION TO 

QUALCOMM’S MOTION TO 

SHORTEN TIME

Courtroom: 8, 4th Floor

Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1497 Filed 05/29/19 Page 1 of 3
2

FTC’S OPPOSITION TO QUALCOMM’S MOTION

TO SHORTEN TIME

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK

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

ARGUMENT

Qualcomm has not established good cause to shorten the FTC’s time to respond to 

Qualcomm’s motion for a stay pending appeal. Specifically, Qualcomm does not identify any 

irreparable harm that will occur in the eleven days between May 31, 2019, the deadline proposed 

by Qualcomm for the FTC’s response, and June 11, 2019, the date on which the FTC’s response 

would otherwise be due.

1 The primary harm Qualcomm argues will occur absent a stay stems 

from the requirement that it negotiate or renegotiate license agreements with modem-chip 

manufacturers and current licensees free from threatened loss of access to or discriminatory 

provision of chip supply. But at trial, Qualcomm’s own witnesses contended that past license 

negotiations and renegotiations took considerably longer than eleven days. (Tr. 1404:6-9; 1461:2-

5.) Qualcomm fails to demonstrate that complying with the briefing schedule established by the 

Local Rules would cause any harm.2

By contrast, an abbreviated briefing schedule will prejudice the FTC. Qualcomm first 

informed the FTC of its intention to move for a stay on May 24, 2019, but did not provide any 

information regarding its arguments or basis for requesting a stay. The FTC learned of 

Qualcomm’s specific positions the evening of Tuesday, May 28, when Qualcomm filed its 

twenty-four page motion. (ECF No. 1495.) Three days does not provide the FTC with adequate 

time to consider and respond, as necessary, to Qualcomm’s arguments.

The FTC respectfully requests that the Court deny Qualcomm’s motion to shorten time, 

except that the FTC does not object to Qualcomm waiving its reply brief. 

 1 Although Qualcomm would normally be entitled to a reply brief due June 18, 2019, its briefing 

appears to agree to waive that reply. (ECF No. 1496 at 1.)

2 The harm that Qualcomm suggests may befall it is entirely speculative. (ECF No. 1495-1.) 

Nothing in the Court’s order prevents Qualcomm from negotiating and receiving reasonable 

royalties in exchange for licenses to its intellectual property. Nor does the Court’s order prevent 

Qualcomm from charging market-based prices for its chips.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1497 Filed 05/29/19 Page 2 of 3
3

FTC’S OPPOSITION TO QUALCOMM’S MOTION

TO SHORTEN TIME

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK

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

Dated: May 29, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

 /s/ Jennifer Milici

Jennifer Milici

Wesley G. Carson

Daniel Matheson

Mark J. Woodward

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20580

(202) 326-2912; (202) 326-3496 (fax)

jmilici@ftc.gov

Attorneys for Federal Trade Commission

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1497 Filed 05/29/19 Page 3 of 3