REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

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

QUALCOMM’S HPOS AND RESPONSES FOR JANUARY 22, 2019 TRIAL DAY

17-CV-0220-LHK-NMC

KEKER VAN NEST & PETERS LLP

Robert A. Van Nest

Eugene M. Paige

Justina K. Sessions

633 Battery Street

San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 

Telephone: (415) 676-2289 

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, NY 10019-7475 

Telephone: (212) 474-1000 

Facsimile: (212) 474-3700 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

Richard S. Taffet (pro hac vice) 

richard.taffet@morganlewis.com

101 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10178-0060 

Telephone: (212) 309-0060 

Facsimile: (212) 309-6001 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

Geoffrey T. Holtz (SBN 191370)

Geoffrey.holtz@morganlewis.com

One Market, Spear Street Tower

San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 

Telephone: (415) 442-1000 

Facsimile: (415) 442-1001 

Attorneys for Defendant

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

Additional Counsel listed on the Signature 

Page

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-0220-LHK-NMC 

QUALCOMM’S HIGH PRIORITY 

OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES 

FOR JANUARY 22, 2019 TRIAL DAY

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1356 Filed 01/18/19 Page 1 of 7
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

QUALCOMM’S HPOS AND RESPONSES FOR JANUARY 22, 2019 TRIAL DAY

17-CV-0220-LHK-NMC

1

Pursuant to the Court’s October 24 Case Management Order (ECF No. 922), Qualcomm 

respectfully submits the following high-priority objections and responses for January 22, 2019. 

Qualcomm’s HPO No. 1 (objection to FTC’s FRE 106 designation of Hojin Kang 

Tr. 63:2-6, 63:9-10, 152:25-153:3, asserted by the FTC to respond to Qualcomm’s 

designation of Tr. 62:24-63:1, 152:25-153:3)

In the Kang deposition, Qualcomm has designated a series of complete questions and 

answers regarding the role of licensing in Samsung’s selection process for modem chips. The 

FTC previously has objected to Qualcomm’s completeness designations on the grounds that the 

purpose of a completeness designation pursuant to FRE 106 is “to prevent the introduction of ‘a 

misleadingly-tailored snippet,’ not to interject other issues or ‘merely cast doubt on [a witness’s] 

accuracy and reliability.’ United States v. Collicott, 92 F.3d 973, 983 (9th Cir. 1996).” (ECF 

No. 1074 at 1.) The FTC further argued that completeness designations may not be used merely 

“to rebut designated testimony” or to place the witness’s testimony “in context”. (Id. at 2.) 

Rather, the FTC said, a completeness designation should be allowed only “to correct a 

misleading impression . . . that is created by taking something out of context”, but is unnecessary 

when “the edited version of a statement did not ‘distort the meaning of the statement’”. (Id.) 

The Court sustained the FTC’s objections to Qualcomm’s completeness designations. (E.g., 

ECF No. 1099.) Here, Qualcomm designated testimony showing that Kang, in his role as the 

head of the procurement division in charge of procuring baseband processors, did not consider 

royalties as part of the chip selection process. The FTC’s proposed completeness designations 

do nothing to clarify this testimony or make it not misleading; rather, they reflect an attempt to 

elicit contradicting testimony about other individuals. (Tr. 63:2-6, 63:9-10.) These are not 

proper completeness designations under the standard put forward by the FTC. Neither is the 

FTC’s attempt to designate a question seeking identification of specific customers (Tr. 152:25-

153:3) a proper completeness designation to Qualcomm’s designation of a complete question 

regarding whether Samsung sold chips to any third parties. This testimony is unnecessary to a 

full understanding of Qualcomm’s designation. Qualcomm’s objection should be sustained.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1356 Filed 01/18/19 Page 2 of 7
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

QUALCOMM’S HPOS AND RESPONSES FOR JANUARY 22, 2019 TRIAL DAY

17-CV-0220-LHK-NMC

2

Qualcomm’s HPO No. 2 (objection to FTC’s FRE 106 designation of Jianxin Ding

Tr. 299:11-25, asserted by the FTC to respond to Qualcomm’s designation of Tr. 300:6-17)

In the Ding deposition, Qualcomm designated a complete question and response 

regarding the 2004 and 2014 agreements between Huawei and Qualcomm. The FTC purports to 

correct this so-called misleading testimony by designating a prior question and answer, complete 

with lawyer colloquy, in which the witness provides a non-responsive answer to a similar 

question. Because the FTC’s designation “introduces a new issue” and is unnecessary “to 

correct a misleading impression” or to prevent the “distort[ion] of the meaning of a statement”, it 

is an improper designation under FRE 106 under the standard previously advocated by the FTC 

in this case. Qualcomm’s objection should be sustained.

Qualcomm’s HPO No. 3 (objection to CX6138 for use with Lorenzo Casaccia 

because the witness lacks personal knowledge of and foundation for testimony about the 

exhibit)

Qualcomm objects to CX6138, an email from Roger Martin to Ken Kaskoun and Jason 

Kenagy (all of Qualcomm), attaching a presentation, because Mr. Casaccia lacks personal 

knowledge of the exhibit or foundation to testify about it. In particular, Mr. Casaccia, who is 

neither the sender nor the recipient of the top email in this chain, lacks personal knowledge of the 

top email and the presentation at CX1638-003 to -028. The title slide of the presentation 

beginning on -005 does not list Mr. Casaccia as a presenter, and at his deposition he testified, “I 

don’t recall the other parts of the deck . . . somebody then incorporated [my slides] in a broader 

deck”. (Feb. 22, 2018 Tr. 188:8-18.) To be clear, Qualcomm does not object to admission of the 

presentation with Mr. Casaccia’s name (CX6138-029 to 037), but the FTC has provided no basis 

to infer that Mr. Casaccia has personal knowledge of the remainder of CX6138. This exhibit 

should be excluded under FRE 602.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1356 Filed 01/18/19 Page 3 of 7
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

QUALCOMM’S HPOS AND RESPONSES FOR JANUARY 22, 2019 TRIAL DAY

17-CV-0220-LHK-NMC

3

Qualcomm’s HPO No. 4 (objection to CX8262 for use with Lorenzo Casaccia 

because the witness lacks personal knowledge of and foundation for testimony about the 

exhibit)

Qualcomm objects to CX8262, a presentation by Qualcomm’s IP Advocacy Group titled 

“Meeting with the European Commission”, because Mr. Casaccia lacks personal knowledge of 

the exhibit or foundation to testify about it. Mr. Casaccia is not and has never been a member of 

Qualcomm’s IP Advocacy Group. The FTC has not provided any basis on which the Court 

could conclude that Mr. Casaccia has seen the document, or that he was involved in the meeting 

referenced in the title of the document. This exhibit should be excluded under FRE 602.

Qualcomm’s Response to FTC HPO No. 1 (QX0546 and related testimony of Injung 

Lee (Tr. 36:9-40:5))

QX0546, an email between Derek Aberle of Qualcomm and SeungGun Park of Samsung,

is admissible under the business records exception. FRE 803(6). QX0546 was sent as part of 

Samsung’s renewal of its license agreement in connection with the 2008-2009 license agreement 

negotiations. The email is admissible as a business record pursuant to FRE 803(6) because it 

was created by Samsung employees as part of their business duties. Moreover, the email is not 

included for the truth of the matter asserted but to show when Samsung renewed its amendment 

and began negotiating. Mr. Lee has sufficient knowledge regarding the document and the event 

described therein. While Mr. Lee testified that he joined the negotiation team after this email, he 

also testified that he was knowledgeable regarding the 2008-2009 licensing negotiations and that 

he was briefed by others regarding the meetings he did not attend. (Tr. 141:24-142:2; Tr. 

206:20-22 (“I –having served as the window of communication back then in the 2009 time frame 

and was thus familiar with the history in that regard”); 142:22-143:1.) Notably, the FTC played 

extensive testimony from Mr. Lee regarding these same negotiations, including testimony about 

Samsung’s initial choice to renegotiate, a decision made before Mr. Lee was a part of the 

negotiation team. (e.g. Tr. 140:23-141:3; 141:6-11; 143:9-13; 143:16-23; 166:23-167:7.)

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1356 Filed 01/18/19 Page 4 of 7
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

QUALCOMM’S HPOS AND RESPONSES FOR JANUARY 22, 2019 TRIAL DAY

17-CV-0220-LHK-NMC

4

Qualcomm’s Response to FTC HPO No. 2 (QX0558 and related testimony of Injung 

Lee (Tr. 261:8 – 262:19)) 

QX0558, a statement of Samsung’s “modem chip acquisition status”, qualifies for the 

business record exception because on its face it is a business record detailing Samsung’s modem 

chip acquisition status. Accordingly, it should be admissible for the truth of the matter asserted. 

Even if it is not, the document is admissible for impeachment purposes. FRE 801. During the 

course of his deposition, Mr. Lee testified that Qualcomm supplied “

that [Samsung was] incorporating into [their] mobile phones” (Tr. 151:13-16) and that this 

provided Qualcomm with leverage during negotiations and led Samsung to accept a royalty rate 

it otherwise would have refused. (Tr. 198:23-199:2.) QX0558 directly contradicts that statement 

because it states that Samsung was purchasing only from Qualcomm in 2008 

and 2009. The document therefore directly contradicts Mr. Lee’s testimony and is thus 

impeachment material.

Qualcomm’s Response to FTC HPO No. 3 (QX0551 and related testimony of Injung 

Lee (Tr. 64:24 – 65:3))

QX0551 is an internal summary of a meeting between Qualcomm and Samsung created 

by Samsung in the ordinary course of business, which is substantially similar to other documents 

admitted by this Court. Mr. Lee testified that he had seen the minutes before and that they were 

one of many internal summaries prepared by Samsung. (Tr. 63:18-25.) Mr. Lee also testified 

that he had been briefed by others for meetings he did not attend. (Tr. 142:22-143:1.) The FTC 

argued that a similar document was admissible because “Mr. Lee further testified that Samsung 

regularly created such summary reports after negotiation meetings.” (ECF-1222.) This Court 

admitted the document as a part of the FTC’s designation of Mr. Lee’s testimony. (See ECF1231.) Accordingly, Mr. Lee can properly introduce this exhibit, which details the first 

negotiation, as a business record.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1356 Filed 01/18/19 Page 5 of 7
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

QUALCOMM’S HPOS AND RESPONSES FOR JANUARY 22, 2019 TRIAL DAY

17-CV-0220-LHK-NMC

5

Qualcomm’s Response to FTC HPO No. 4 (QX1005 and associated testimony of 

Robert Rango (Tr. 67:12–68:19, 68:22–68:24, 69:11–70:15, 70:18–70:24, 71:2–71:15))

Mr. Rango testified about Broadcom’s chip business and Broadcom’s reaction to Apple’s 

rejection of Broadcom’s product proposal. (Tr. 67:12–68:19, 68:22–68:24, 69:11–70:15, 70:18–

70:24, 71:2–71:15.) Mr. Rango’s testimony included testimony concerning QX1005, an internal 

Broadcom email from May 2014. Both of the FTC’s objections to this testimony and exhibit 

should be overruled. First, Mr. Rango has personal knowledge of Broadcom’s chip business 

through his role as Executive VP and GM of Broadcom’s Mobile and Wireless Group. (Tr. 16:9-

19.) And Mr. Rango was personally involved in Broadcom’s product proposals to Apple. (E.g., 

Tr. 73:12-18, 73:23-25, 74:11-14.) As to the related exhibit, QX1005, Mr. Rango is a recipient 

of the May 7, 2014 email and thus has personal knowledge of that email. In fact, he testified 

extensively about the content of the email and confirmed that the content of the exhibit is 

“consistent with” the “discussions [he] had with [Apple]”. (Tr. 74:11-14.) Thus, the FTC’s 

FRE 602 objection is without merit. Second, the FTC’s hearsay objections are misplaced. 

Mr. Rango’s testimony about Broadcom’s chip business—based on his knowledge as a 

Broadcom executive—is not hearsay. (E.g., Tr. 71:10-15 (“What is envelope tracking? . . . Was 

that a new feature for Broadcom’s chips? Yes.”).) To the extent the FTC asserts that Apple’s 

statements to Mr. Rango are hearsay, those statements are offered to show the effect of Apple’s 

rejection of Broadcom’s product proposal on Mr. Rango, namely why Broadcom exited the chip 

business. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1356 Filed 01/18/19 Page 6 of 7
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

QUALCOMM’S HPOS AND RESPONSES FOR JANUARY 22, 2019 TRIAL DAY

17-CV-0220-LHK-NMC

6

Dated: January 18, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP

s/ Yonatan Even

Gary A. Bornstein

Yonatan Even

Worldwide Plaza

825 Eighth Avenue

New York, NY 10019

Telephone: (212) 474-1000

Facsimile: (212) 474-3700

gbornstein@cravath.com

yeven@cravath.com

Robert A. Van Nest

Eugene M. Paige

Justina K. Sessions

KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP

633 Battery Street

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: (415) 676-2289

Facsimile: (415) 397-7188

rvannest@keker.com

epaige@keker.com

jsessions@keker.com

Richard S. Taffet

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

101 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10178

Telephone: (212) 369-6000

Facsimile: (212) 309-6001

richard.taffet@morganlewis.com

Geoffrey T. Holtz

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

One Market, Spear Street Tower

San Francisco, CA 94105

Telephone: (415) 442-1000

Facsimile: (415) 442-1001

geoffrey.holtz@morganlewis.com

Attorneys for Qualcomm Incorporated

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1356 Filed 01/18/19 Page 7 of 7