Exhibit 31

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 937-12 Filed 11/28/18 Page 1 of 6
·1· · · · · · · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

· · · · · · · NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

·2· · · · · · · · · · SAN JOSE DIVISION

·3· ·FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

·4· · · · · · · Plaintiff,

·5· · · · · · · · · vs.· · · · ·No. 17-cv-00220-LHK-NMC

·6· ·QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, a

· · ·Delaware Corporation,

·7

· · · · · · · · Defendant.

·8· ·__________________________/

·9· ·IN RE: QUALCOMM ANTITRUST· ·No. 17-md-02773-LHK-NMC

· · ·LITIGATION

10· ·__________________________/

11· · · · · · · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

· · · · · · · ·SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

13· ·IN RE: QUALCOMM

· · ·LITIGATION· · · · · · · · No. 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD

14· ·__________________________/

15

16· · · · · · · · VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF

17· · · · · · · · · · ·TARANEH MAGHAME

18· · · · · · 30(B)(6) DESIGNEE, VIA LICENSING

19· · · · · · _________________________________

20· · · · · · · · WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 2018

21

22· · ***HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY***

23

24· ·REPORTED BY:· HOLLY THUMAN, CSR No. 6834, RMR, CRR

25· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · (NY-166900)

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 937-12 Filed 11/28/18 Page 2 of 6
·1· · · · · · Do you see that?

·2· · · · A.· Yes.

·3· · · · Q.· Again, do you know how it was determined

·4· ·that the licensee should be the manufacturer or the

·5· ·one who first sells an LTE-compliant functional

·6· ·product into a distribution channel or to a

·7· ·wireless operator?

·8· · · · A.· Well, I think that has been the standard

·9· ·practice in licensing in the handset area, but I

10· ·don't know exactly how this slide came about or

11· ·this decision was made.

12· · · · Q.· Would you mind turning next to page 32?

13· ·Still in the same exhibit.· This is the page that

14· ·reads "Revenue Sharing Approaches" in the top

15· ·slide.

16· · · · A.· Right.

17· · · · Q.· So first of all, just as a general

18· ·principle, what is being discussed here when they

19· ·reference revenue-sharing approaches?

20· · · · A.· Give me a minute to just read this slide.

21· · · · Q.· Sure.

22· · · · A.· Because that's a very general topic.

23· · · · · · All right.· I think what they're referring

24· ·to here is just basically the methodology by which

25· ·revenue that's taken in by Via would be distributed

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 937-12 Filed 11/28/18 Page 3 of 6
·1· ·have joined under the new structure.

·2· · · · · · MR. HOLTZ:· Thanks.

·3· · · · · · (Deposition Exhibit QX2528 was marked

·4· · · · · · for identification.)

·5· ·BY MR. HOLTZ:

·6· · · · Q.· All right.· Ms. Maghame, you've been

·7· ·handed Exhibit 2528.· This is a document produced

·8· ·by Via Licensing.· On the first page, it reads "Via

·9· ·Licensing Corporation Quarterly Revenue

10· ·Distribution Report," and it's dated May 15, 2017.

11· · · · · · Just in broad terms, could you describe

12· ·what's reflected in this document?

13· · · · A.· Well, this is the report that we provide

14· ·to our licensors on a quarterly basis that lays out

15· ·what revenue was taken in and how that was

16· ·allocated and distributed and who our current

17· ·licensees are.

18· · · · Q.· Okay, great.· If you wouldn't mind turning

19· ·to what's marked as page 3.· This is Bates

20· ·page 2707.

21· · · · · · So the names around the pie chart -- ZTE,

22· ·AT&T, et cetera -- those at this point in time were

23· ·the licensors in the Via pool.· Correct?

24· · · · A.· That's right.

25· · · · Q.· So MediaTek is listed there.· Correct?

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 937-12 Filed 11/28/18 Page 4 of 6
·1· · · · A.· Yes.

·2· · · · Q.· Okay.· So at least as of March 31, 2017,

·3· ·MediaTek was in the licensing pool.· Correct?

·4· · · · A.· Well, like I said, they joined in 2016. I

·5· ·just didn't know the exact date.

·6· · · · Q.· That's fair enough.

·7· · · · A.· Yeah.

·8· · · · Q.· And then in the gray box at the top of

·9· ·that page, those are the -- you said the current

10· ·licensees under the program?

11· · · · · · MR. HOPKIN:· Objection.· Form.

12· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· As of that date.· Yes, as of

13· ·that date.

14· ·BY MR. HOLTZ:

15· · · · Q.· So MediaTek, at least at this point in

16· ·time, was a licensor, but it was not a licensee.

17· ·Correct?

18· · · · A.· That's correct.

19· · · · Q.· Okay.· Do you know if MediaTek is a

20· ·licensee today of the LTE pool?

21· · · · A.· It is not.

22· · · · Q.· Do you know if Intel is a licensee of the

23· ·LTE pool?

24· · · · A.· It is not.

25· · · · Q.· Do you know if Spreadtrum is a licensee of

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 937-12 Filed 11/28/18 Page 5 of 6
·1· · · · · · · · ·CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

·2· · · · I, HOLLY THUMAN, a Certified Shorthand Reporter,

·3· ·hereby certify that the witness in the foregoing

·4· ·deposition was by me duly sworn to tell the truth, the

·5· ·whole truth, and nothing but the truth in the

·6· ·within-entitled cause; that said deposition was taken

·7· ·down in shorthand by me, a disinterested person, at the

·8· ·time and place therein stated; and that the testimony of

·9· ·said witness was thereafter reduced to typewriting, by

10· ·computer, under my direction and supervision;

11· · · · That before completion of the deposition review of

12· ·the transcript [] was [X] was not requested/offered.· If

13· ·requested, any changes made by the deponent (and

14· ·provided to the reporter) during the period allowed are

15· ·appended hereto.

16· · · · I further certify that I am not of counsel or

17· ·attorney for either or any of the parties to the said

18· ·deposition, nor in any way interested in the event of

19· ·this cause, and that I am not related to any of the

20· ·parties thereto.

21

22· ·DATED:· March 15, 2018

23· ·____________________________

· · · · · ·HOLLY THUMAN, CSR

24

25

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 937-12 Filed 11/28/18 Page 6 of 6