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

 Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Opposition to Motion for 

Partial Summary Judgment on Qualcomm’s Standard Essential Patent Licensing Commitments 

Case No. 17-cv-220-LHK-NMC 

KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP 

Robert A. Van Nest (SBN 84065) 

rvannest@keker.com 

Eugene M. Paige (SBN 202849) 

epaige@keker.com 

Justina Sessions (SBN 270914) 

jsessions@keker.com 

633 Battery Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 

Telephone: (415) 391-5400 

Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP 

Gary A. Bornstein (pro hac vice) 

gbornstein@cravath.com 

Yonatan Even (pro hac vice)

yeven@cravath.com 

825 Eighth Avenue 

New York, New York 10019-7475 

Telephone: (212) 474-1000 

Facsimile: (212) 474-3700 

Attorneys for Defendant 

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

Richard S. Taffet (pro hac vice)

richard.taffet@morganlewis.com 

101 Park Avenue 

New York, NY 10178-0060 

Telephone: (212) 309-6000 

Facsimile: (212) 309-6001 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

Willard K. Tom (pro hac vice)

willard.tom@morganlewis.com 

1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20004-2541 

Telephone: (202) 739-3000 

Facsimile: (202) 739-3001 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

Geoffrey T. Holtz (SBN 191370) 

gholtz@morganlewis.com 

One Market, Spear Street Tower 

San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 

Telephone: (415) 442-1000 

Facsimile: (415) 442-1001 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, a Delaware 

corporation, 

Defendant. 

 Case No. 17-cv-0220-LHK-NMC 

DEFENDANT QUALCOMM 

INCORPORATED’S REQUEST FOR 

JUDICIAL NOTICE IN OPPOSITION TO 

MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT ON QUALCOMM’S 

STANDARD ESSENTIAL PATENT 

LICENSING COMMITMENTS 

Date: October 18, 2018 

Time: 1:30 p.m. 

Dept.: Courtroom 8, 4th Floor 

Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh 

Trial Date: January 4, 2019 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 908 Filed 10/17/18 Page 1 of 10
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 

 Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Opposition to Motion for 

Partial Summary Judgment on Qualcomm’s Standard Essential Patent Licensing Commitments 

Case No. 17-cv-220-LHK-NMC 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, defendant Qualcomm Inc. (“Qualcomm”) 

respectfully requests that the Court take judicial notice of the contents of the following documents 

that are attached to this request or to declarations accompanying Qualcomm’s Opposition to the 

FTC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Qualcomm’s Standard Essential Patent 

Licensing Commitments (“Opposition”): 

Publicly Available Standards Related Documents 

1. February 23, 2018 Decision of the American National Standards Institute 

(“ANSI”) Executive Standards Council Appeals Panel, available at: 

https://share.ansi.org/Shared%20Documents/Standards%20Activities/American%20National%20

Standards/Procedures,%20Guides,%20and%20Forms/ANSI%20Executive%20Standards%20Cou

ncil%20(ExSC)%20Interpretations/ExSC_087_2017_091417_patent%20policy_022318%20ame

nded.pdf. Exhibit 1. 

2. ANSI Essential Requirements, available at

https://share.ansi.org/shared%20documents/Standards%20Activities/American%20National%20S

tandards/Procedures,%20Guides,%20and%20Forms/2017_ANSI_Essential_Requirements.pdf. 

Exhibit 2. 

3. OneM2M List of Partners, available at: http://www.onem2m.org/aboutonem2m/partners. Exhibit 3. 

4. 3GPP Partners, available at: http://www.3gpp.org/about-3gpp/partners. Exhibit 4. 

5. 3GPP2 Partners, available at: 

https://www.3gpp2.org/Public_html/Misc/PartnersHome.cfm. Exhibit 5. 

6. OneM2M Partnership Agreement, available at: 

http://www.onem2m.org/images/files/oneM2M_Partnership_Agreement.pdf. Exhibit 6. 

7. 3GPP Working Procedures, available at: 

http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Information/Working_Procedures/3GPP_WP.pdf. Exhibit 7. 

8. 3GPP2 Working Procedures, available at: 

https://www.3gpp2.org/Public_html/DefiningDocs/Working_Procedures_v17.0_Approved_Augu

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 908 Filed 10/17/18 Page 2 of 10
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 

 Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Opposition to Motion for 

Partial Summary Judgment on Qualcomm’s Standard Essential Patent Licensing Commitments 

Case No. 17-cv-220-LHK-NMC 

st2014.pdf. Exhibit 8. 

9. ATIS Membership Listing, available at: 

http://www.atis.org/01_membership/members/. Exhibit 9. 

10. List of TIA Members, available at: https://www.tiaonline.org/about/our-members/. 

Exhibit 10. 

11. ETSI Intellectual Property Rights Policy, available at: 

https://www.etsi.org/images/files/IPR/etsi-ipr-policy.pdf. Exhibit 11. 

12. Letters of assurance submitted by Nokia to ATIS and TIA, available at 

:http://www.atis.org/01_legal/patent-assurances/ and 

https://share.ansi.org/patent%20letters/forms/allitems.aspx. Exhibit 12. 

13. Letters of assurance submitted by Ericsson to ATIS and TIA, available at 

http://www.atis.org/01_legal/patent-assurances/ and 

https://share.ansi.org/patent%20letters/forms/allitems.aspx. Exhibit 13. 

14. Letters of assurance submitted by InterDigital to ATIS and TIA, available at 

http://www.atis.org/01_legal/patent-assurances/ and 

https://share.ansi.org/patent%20letters/forms/allitems.aspx. Exhibit 14. 

ATIS and TIA Standards 

15. The following ATIS standards attached as exhibits to the Declaration of Lorenzo 

Casaccia (“Cassacia Decl.”): 

 ATIS, "3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group 

Services and System Aspects; General Universal Mobile Telecommunications 

System (UMTS) architecture (Release 14)", ATIS.3GPP.23.101V1400 (March 

2017). Casaccia Decl., Ex. 1. 

 ATIS, "3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group 

Services and System Aspects; General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) 

enhancements for Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (EUTRAN) access (Release 14)," ATIS.3GPP.23.401V1460 (December 2017). 

Casaccia Decl. Ex. 2. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 908 Filed 10/17/18 Page 3 of 10
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 

 Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Opposition to Motion for 

Partial Summary Judgment on Qualcomm’s Standard Essential Patent Licensing Commitments 

Case No. 17-cv-220-LHK-NMC 

 ATIS, "3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group 

Services and System Aspects; System Architecture for the 5G System; Stage 2 

(Release 15)," ATIS.3GPP.23.501V1520 (June 2018). Casaccia Decl., Ex. 3. 

 ATIS, "3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group 

Services and System Aspects; Circuit Switched (CS) fallback in Evolved 

Packet System (EPS); Stage 2 (Release 14)," ATIS.3GPP.23.272V1420 

(December 2017). Casaccia Decl., Ex. 4. 

 ATIS, "3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group 

Radio Access Network; Radio Resource Control (RRC); Protocol specification 

(Release 14)," ATIS.3GPP.25.331V1450 (December 2017). Casaccia Decl., 

Ex. 5. 

 ATIS, "3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group 

Radio Access Network; Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (EUTRA); Radio Resource Control (RRC); Protocol specification (Release 14)," 

ATIS.3GPP.36.331V1451 (January 2018). Casaccia Decl., Ex. 6. 

 ATIS, "3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group 

Core Network and Terminals; Non-Access Stratum (NAS) protocol for 

Evolved Packet System (EPS); Stage 3 (Release 14)," ATIS.3PP.24.301V1460 

(December 2017). Casaccia Decl., Ex. 7. 

 "3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio 

Access Network; Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA) and 

Evolved Packet Core (EPC); Common test environments for User Equipment 

(UE) conformance testing (Release 14)," ATIS.3GPP.36.508V1440 (December 

2017). Casaccia Decl., Ex. 8. 

16. The following TIA standards attached as exhibits to the Declaration of Edward G. 

Tiedemann (“Tiedemann Decl.”): 

 IS-2000.1-C, “Introduction to cdma2000 Standards for Spread Spectrum 

Systems.” Tiedemann Decl., Ex. 1. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 908 Filed 10/17/18 Page 4 of 10
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

4 

 Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Opposition to Motion for 

Partial Summary Judgment on Qualcomm’s Standard Essential Patent Licensing Commitments 

Case No. 17-cv-220-LHK-NMC 

 “Mobile Station-Base Station Compatibility Standard for Dual-Mode 

Wideband Spread Spectrum Cellular System,” TIA/EIA/IS-95-A, Preface, at i 

(May 1995). Tiedemann Decl., Ex. 2. 

 TIA/EIA/IS-856, “cdma2000 High Rate Packet Data Air Interface 

Specification.” Tiedemann Decl., Ex. 3. 

 TIA/EIA/IS-2000.2-C, “Physical Layer Standard for cdma2000 Spread 

Spectrum Systems.” Tiedemann Decl., Ex. 4. 

 TIA/EIA-637-B, “Short Message Services for Wideband Spread Spectrum 

Systems.” Tiedemann Decl., Ex. 5. 

 TIA/EIA-683-B, “Over the Air Service Provisioning Of Mobile Stations in 

Spread Spectrum Systems.” Tiedemann Decl., Ex. 6. 

 TIA/EIA/IS-707-A, TIA/EIA/IS-707-A-1, TIA/EIA/IS-707-A-2 titled “Data 

Service Options for Wideband Spread Spectrum Systems,” Tiedemann Decl., 

Ex. 7. 

 TIA/EIA-41-D titled, “Cellular Radiotelecommunications Intersystem 

Operations,” (December 1997). Tiedemann Decl., Ex. 8. 

 TIA/EIA-98-D, “Recommended Minimum Performance Standards for 

cdma2000 Spread Spectrum Mobile Stations.” Tiedemann Decl., Ex. 9. 

 TIA-866-D titled, “Recommended Minimum Performance Standards for 

cdma2000 High Rate Packet Data Access Terminal,” (May 2012). Tiedemann 

Decl., Ex. 10. 

 TIA-1035-B titled, “Signaling Conformance Test Specification for cdma2000 

Spread Spectrum Systems,” (August 2014). Tiedemann Decl., Ex. 11. 

 TIA/EIA-919-B titled, “Signaling Conformance Specification for High Rate 

Packet Data Air Interface,” (September 2011). Tiedemann Decl., Ex. 12. 

 TIA-126-E titled, “Loopback Service Options (LSO) for cdma2000 Spread 

Spectrum Systems,” (December 2011). Tiedemann Decl., Ex. 13. 

 TIA-916-A titled, “Recommended Minimum Performance Standard for Mobile 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 908 Filed 10/17/18 Page 5 of 10
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

5 

 Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Opposition to Motion for 

Partial Summary Judgment on Qualcomm’s Standard Essential Patent Licensing Commitments 

Case No. 17-cv-220-LHK-NMC 

Stations with Position Service,” (February 2012). Tiedemann Decl., Ex. 14. 

 TIA/EIA/IS-820-D-2[E] titled, “Removable User Identity Module (R-UIM) for 

TIA/EIA Spread Spectrum Standards,” (January 2014). Tiedemann Decl., Ex. 

15. 

Decisions of Foreign Courts and Submissions to Foreign Regulatory Bodies 

17. Koninklijke Philips NV v. Asustek Computer Inc., [2016] EWHC 2220 (Pat) (UK 

High Court of Justice). Exhibit 15. 

18. Excerpts of responses to the Korean Fair Trade Commission’s (“KFTC”) 

“Questionnaire for chipset manufacturers” from the following companies: 

 Broadcom Corporation. Exhibit 16. 

 Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson. (ERC-CID-00000220). Exhibit 17. 

 Intel Corporation. (86600DOC000931). Exhibit 18. 

 Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. (MRVL-00000059-082 at -068). Exhibit 19. 

 MediaTek, Inc. (FTC-PROD-0029671). Exhibit 20. 

These documents are referenced and relied upon by Qualcomm in its Opposition. As 

discussed in further detail below, judicial notice of these documents is proper because they are 

“not subject to reasonable dispute” under Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b) and will aid the Court 

in resolving the FTC’s motion. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b), “The court may judicially notice a fact that is not 

subject to reasonable dispute because it ... is generally known within the trial court’s territorial 

jurisdiction; or ... can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot 

reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). The Court “must take judicial notice if the 

party requests it and the court is supplied with the necessary information.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(c). 

III. ARGUMENT 

A. The Court Should Take Judicial Notice of the ATIS and TIA Standards 

Qualcomm requests that the Court take judicial notice of the ATIS and TIA standards. 

See Smart Modular Techs., Inc. v. Netlist, Inc., 212CV02319TLNEFB, 2017 WL 3009217, at *1 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 908 Filed 10/17/18 Page 6 of 10
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 

 Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Opposition to Motion for 

Partial Summary Judgment on Qualcomm’s Standard Essential Patent Licensing Commitments 

Case No. 17-cv-220-LHK-NMC 

(E.D. Cal. July 14, 2017) (taking judicial notice of the JEDEC Manual of Organization and 

Procedure and proposed JEDEC Standard JESD82-xx in case alleging breach of duty to disclose 

patent to standards setting organization). The FTC’s motion for partial summary judgment 

alleges that the ATIS and TIA IPR Policies require Qualcomm to license the manufacture and 

sale of modem chips. The ATIS and TIA IPR Policies, however, require that Qualcomm provide 

licenses only for the purpose of implementing or practicing a standard, which modem chips 

cannot do. The FTC failed to submit the standards in question, and the Court cannot interpret the 

scope of the licensing commitment in the ATIS and TIA IPR policies without understanding what 

it means to “implement” or “practice” an ATIS or TIA standard, the understanding of which 

cannot be complete without an understanding of the ATIS and TIA standards themselves. 

Judicial notice of those standards is appropriate under these circumstances. See, e.g.,

Mahoney v. Sessions, 871 F.3d 873, 877 (9th Cir. 2017), cert. denied sub nom. Mahoney v. City of 

Seattle, Wash., 138 S. Ct. 1441 (2018) (taking judicial notice of a policy that was subject to 

litigation); No Cost Conf., Inc. v. Windstream Commun., Inc., 940 F. Supp. 2d 1285, 1295-96 

(S.D. Cal. 2013) (taking judicial notice of contract subject to breach of contract claim); Smart 

Modular Techs., 2017 WL 3009217, at *1; see also McMahon v. Bunn-O-Matic Corp., 150 F.3d 

651, 655 (7th Cir. 1998) (taking judicial notice of ANSI standard). 

B. The Court Should Take Judicial Notice of Publicly Available Standards 

Development Organization Documents, Including Published Decisions of 

Standards Bodies 

The Court should take judicial notice of the publicly available documents, including 

membership lists and decisions published by standards bodies, posted on the official websites of 

standards development organizations (“SDOs”), including ATIS, TIA, ETSI and other SDOs that 

are in partnership with them, because they are necessary to evaluate the FTC’s claim that 

Qualcomm’s commitments to ATIS and TIA require it to license for the purpose of 

manufacturing and selling modem chips. 

Materials like the ATIS and TIA standards and membership lists that are posted on the 

Internet are subject to judicial notice. See Matthews v. Natl. Football League Mgt. Council, 688 

F.3d 1107 & n.5, 1113 (9th Cir. 2012) (granting request for judicial notice of statistics posted on 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 908 Filed 10/17/18 Page 7 of 10
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

7 

 Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Opposition to Motion for 

Partial Summary Judgment on Qualcomm’s Standard Essential Patent Licensing Commitments 

Case No. 17-cv-220-LHK-NMC 

the NFL's website); O'Toole v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 499 F.3d 1218, 1225 (10th Cir. 2007) 

(“It is not uncommon for courts to take judicial notice of factual information found on the world 

wide web.”) (citing cases); City of Monroe Employees Ret. Sys. v. Bridgestone Corp., 399 F.3d 

651, 655 n. 1 (6th Cir. 2005) (taking judicial notice of a term defined on the website of the 

National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.); Matera v. Google Inc., 15-CV-04062-LHK, 

2016 WL 5339806, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2016) (granting request for judicial notice of a page 

from Google’s website); Wible v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 375 F.Supp.2d 956, 965 (C.D.Cal.2005) 

(granting judicial notice of Amazon webpages). 

The Court should take judicial notice of the content posted on the official websites of 

ANSI, TIA, ATIS, oneM2M, 3GPP and 3GPP2 as they existed on September 21, 2018 (the last 

date they were accessed prior to this filing). Qualcomm has attached the specific webpages it is 

relying upon and the FTC and the Court can readily confirm the accuracy of the materials 

submitted by Qualcomm by entering the website URLs provided above into a web browser. See 

Caldwell v. Caldwell, 2006 WL 618511, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2006) (“[D]efendants must 

provide the specific webpages upon which they will base their arguments and/or the specific 

pages which they claim provide the necessary context for their arguments.”). The legitimacy of 

these respective sources also cannot be questioned as these materials appear on the official 

websites of the respective organizations and cannot be edited by the general public. Judicial 

notice of the content of these materials is, therefore, proper. 

C. The Court Should Take Judicial Notice of the UK High Court of Justice 

Decision and Submissions to the KFTC 

Qualcomm also seeks judicial notice of the opinion in Koninklijke Philips NV v. Asustek 

Computer Inc., [2016] EWHC 2220 (Pat) (UK High Court of Justice) and submissions made by 

Broadcom, Ericsson, Intel, Marvel, and MediaTek in response to the Korea Fair Trade 

Commission’s “Questionnaire for chipset manufacturers.” Judicial notice of filings made in 

foreign jurisdictions is routine. See, e.g., Yuen v. U.S. Stock Transfer Co., 966 F. Supp. 944, 945 

(C.D. Cal. 1997) (taking judicial notice of filings in UK High Court of Justice). The accuracy of 

these submissions cannot reasonably questioned as they were produced to Qualcomm by the FTC 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 908 Filed 10/17/18 Page 8 of 10
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

8 

 Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Opposition to Motion for 

Partial Summary Judgment on Qualcomm’s Standard Essential Patent Licensing Commitments 

Case No. 17-cv-220-LHK-NMC 

or relevant third parties in this litigation, or by the KFTC to Qualcomm as part of the proceeding 

in that matter. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant Qualcomm’s Request for Judicial 

Notice. 

Dated: September 24, 2018 

By: 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

/s/ Geoffrey T. Holtz 

 Geoffrey T. Holtz 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 908 Filed 10/17/18 Page 9 of 10
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

9 

 Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Opposition to Motion for 

Partial Summary Judgment on Qualcomm’s Standard Essential Patent Licensing Commitments 

Case No. 17-cv-220-LHK-NMC 

 Robert A. Van Nest (SBN 84065) 

Eugene M. Paige (SBN 202849) 

Justina Sessions (SBN 270914) 

KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP 

633 Battery Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 

Telephone: (415) 391-5400 

Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 

Gary A. Bornstein (pro hac vice)

Yonatan Even (pro hac vice)

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP 

Worldwide Plaza 

825 Eighth Avenue 

New York, NY 10019-7475 

Tel.: (212) 474-1000 

Fax: (212) 474-3700 

gbornstein@cravath.com 

yeven@cravath.com 

Richard S. Taffet (pro hac vice)

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

101 Park Avenue 

New York, NY 10178-0060 

Tel.: (212) 309-6000 

Fax: (212) 309-6001 

richard.taffet@morganlewis.com 

Willard K. Tom (pro hac vice)

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20004-2541 

Tel.: (202) 739-3000 

Fax: (202) 739 3001 

willard.tom@morganlewis.com 

Geoffrey T. Holtz (SBN 191370) 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

One Market, Spear Street Tower 

San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 

Tel.: (415) 442-1000 

Fax: (415) 442-1001 

gholtz@morganlewis.com 

 Attorneys for Defendant 

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 908 Filed 10/17/18 Page 10 of 10