1 FTC RESPONSE TO DOJ STATEMENT OF INTEREST

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 

Geoffrey M. Green, D.C. Bar No. 428392 

Daniel Matheson, D.C. Bar No. 502490 

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 RESPONSE TO 

STATEMENT OF INTEREST FILED 

BY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 

OF JUSTICE ANTITRUST DIVISION 

Courtroom: 7, 4th Floor 

Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh 

The FTC files this short response to the untimely Statement of Interest submitted by the 

Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice to clarify that the FTC did not participate in 

or request this filing.1 While, as the record shows, the FTC supports and is prepared to provide 

further briefing and argument on remedy should the Court’s liability ruling make such briefing 

 

1

 Whether to permit or deny a statement of interest is committed to the discretion of the district 

court. See, e.g., LSP Transmission Holdings, LLC v. Lange, 329 F. Supp. 3d 695, 703–04 (D. 

Minn. 2018) (declining to consider statement of interest “[i]n light of the Antitrust Division’s 

unjustified delay and the fact that [the] case [had] been fully and thoroughly briefed by all other 

parties”); United States ex rel. Gudur v. Deloitte Consulting LLP, 512 F. Supp. 2d 920, 926–27 

(S.D. Tex. 2007), aff’d, No. 07-20414, 2008 WL 3244000 (5th Cir. Aug. 7, 2008). 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1489 Filed 05/09/19 Page 1 of 2
 2 FTC RESPONSE TO DOJ STATEMENT OF INTEREST

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

and argument necessary,2 we disagree with a number of contentions in the Statement. Among 

other things, the submission ignores this Court’s prior orders and the parties’ briefing on remedy 

and misconstrues applicable law and the record.3 The FTC is cognizant, however, of the Court’s 

comments about the voluminous existing briefing in this case.4 The FTC will therefore refrain 

from further comment on the Statement unless the Court requests otherwise. 

Dated: May 9, 2019 Respectfully submitted, 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

 /s/ Jennifer Milici 

Jennifer Milici 

Geoffrey M. Green 

Daniel Matheson 

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 

 

2 See ECF No. 928 at 2 n.1; ECF No. 932 at 4 n.4. 

3 See ECF No. 997, at 10 (Dec. 13, 2018 Court order that “[t]he January 2019 trial will address 

both liability and remedy”); ECF No. 75 (April 19, 2017 scheduling order; no bifurcation of 

liability and remedy); Nov. 15, 2017 Hr’g Tr. at 4:21-5:3 (ECF No. 314) (Court rejecting 

Qualcomm bifurcation proposal); Oct. 24, 2018 Hr’g Tr. at 49:24-57:18 (ECF No. 916) 

(extensive discussion of remedy issues); ECF Nos. 928, 929, 932, 933 (party briefs on remedy 

evidence); ECF No. 966, at 66-67 (FTC proposed conclusions of law on remedy); ECF No. 967, 

at 139-151 (Qualcomm proposed conclusions of law on remedy); ECF No. 1051, at 24-25 

(Qualcomm pre-trial brief); ECF No. 1053, at 21-22 (FTC pre-trial brief). The Statement also 

cites documents that Qualcomm chose not to introduce at trial and cites a commentator whom 

Qualcomm chose not to offer as a witness at trial. See Statement at 5 n.6. 

4 See Trial Tr. at 142:17-20, 396:13-16, 854:2-5, 1279:5-6. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1489 Filed 05/09/19 Page 2 of 2