1

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PARTIES’ REVISED MOTIONS TO SEAL 

PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PARTIES’ 

REVISED MOTIONS TO SEAL 

PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF 

FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1469, 1470

Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has filed a revised administrative motion to 

file under seal the FTC’s pretrial proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. ECF No. 

1469. Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) has filed a revised administrative 

motion to file under seal Qualcomm’s pretrial proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. 

ECF No. 1470. 

The Court notes that Qualcomm has publicly disclosed much of its royalty rate 

information. See, e.g., ECF No. 1169 at 1 (“Qualcomm has historically sought royalty rates of 5% 

of the net selling price of complete devices that implement 2G and/or 3G standards (whether or 

not the handsets also implement 4G LTE standards), subject to certain royalty caps.”). In 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1471 Filed 02/15/19 Page 1 of 5
2

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PARTIES’ REVISED MOTIONS TO SEAL 

PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Qualcomm’s Statement Regarding Public Licensing Information, ECF No. 1169, Qualcomm 

stated that the general terms of Qualcomm’s Chinese Patent License Agreements are “widely 

known.” Id. at 2. Specifically, Qualcomm charges royalties of 5% for multimode 3G/4G devices 

and 3.5% for 3-mode LTE-TDD devices that do not implement CDMA or WCDMA. Id. Both 

Qualcomm’s licensing attorney Fabian Gonell and Qualcomm’s expert Professor Aviv Nevo 

testified extensively about Qualcomm’s royalty rates publicly. See, e.g., Tr. 1400:17-1401:4; Tr. 

1875:23-1876:6. 

Applying the compelling reasons standard, the Court rules on the parties’ motions to seal 

as follows.

Motion to 

Seal

Requesting Party or 

Parties

Portions of 

Paragraph

Ruling

ECF No. 1469 Qualcomm ¶ 108 DENIED. 

ECF No. 1469 Qualcomm ¶ 109 GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1469 Qualcomm ¶ 128 DENIED. 

ECF No. 1469 MediaTek ¶ 140 GRANTED.

ECF No. 1469 Qualcomm ¶ 309 DENIED. 

ECF No. 1469 Qualcomm ¶ 311 DENIED. 

ECF No. 1470 Samsung, Qualcomm ¶ 40 DENIED. 

ECF No. 1470 Qualcomm ¶ 85 GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1470 Qualcomm ¶ 90 DENIED. 

ECF No. 1470 Qualcomm ¶ 92 DENIED. 

ECF No. 1470 Qualcomm ¶ 94 DENIED. 

ECF No. 1470 Lenovo, Qualcomm ¶ 97 GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1470 Lenovo, Qualcomm ¶ 100 DENIED. Qualcomm’s standard 

CPLA rates were revealed in the 

public testimony of Fabian Gonell. 

Tr. 1400:17-1401:4. 

ECF No. 1470 Lenovo, Qualcomm ¶ 103 DENIED. 

ECF No. 1470 BlackBerry, 

Qualcomm

¶ 110 GRANTED as to the upfront fee

amount in the 2000 BlackBerry 

SULA, but DENIED as to the royalty 

rate. 

ECF No. 1470 Qualcomm ¶ 111 DENIED.

ECF No. 1470 BlackBerry, 

Qualcomm

¶ 115 GRANTED. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1471 Filed 02/15/19 Page 2 of 5
3

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PARTIES’ REVISED MOTIONS TO SEAL 

PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Motion to 

Seal

Requesting Party or 

Parties

Portions of 

Paragraph

Ruling

ECF No. 1470 Qualcomm ¶ 117 GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1470 Qualcomm ¶ 127 DENIED. 

ECF No. 1470 Huawei, Qualcomm ¶ 132 GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1470 Huawei, Qualcomm ¶ 136 DENIED as to royalty rates for sales 

in China, but GRANTED as to royalty 

rates for sales outside of China. 

ECF No. 1470 Qualcomm ¶ 142 GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1470 Huawei, Qualcomm ¶ 143 GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1470 Nokia, Qualcomm ¶ 150 GRANTED as to the upfront license

fee amount, but DENIED as to the 

royalty rate in the 2001 Nokia 

Agreement. 

ECF No. 1470 Nokia, Qualcomm ¶ 154 GRANTED as to the upfront license

fee amount, but DENIED as to the 

royalty rates in the 2008 Nokia 

Agreement.

ECF No. 1470 Qualcomm ¶ 156 GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1470 Qualcomm ¶ 157 GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1470 Sony, Qualcomm ¶ 160 GRANTED as to the upfront fee

amount, but DENIED as to the royalty 

rate in the 1996 Sony SULA. 

ECF No. 1470 Sony, Ericsson, 

Qualcomm

¶ 165 DENIED. 

ECF No. 1470 Sony ¶ 166 DENIED. 

ECF No. 1470 Sony ¶ 167 DENIED. 

ECF No. 1470 Qualcomm ¶ 176 GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1470 Sony, Qualcomm ¶ 182 GRANTED as to the royalty rate on 

line 26 on page 24, but DENIED as to 

the remainder, which was revealed in 

Gonell’s public testimony. Trans. 

1407:12-14.

ECF No. 1470 Sony, Qualcomm ¶ 183 DENIED as to royalty rates for sales 

in China, but GRANTED as to royalty 

rates for sales outside of China. 

ECF No. 1470 Panasonic, Qualcomm ¶¶ 187, 190 DENIED. 

ECF No. 1470 Qualcomm ¶ 194 DENIED. 

ECF No. 1470 Panasonic, Qualcomm ¶ 195 GRANTED as to the specific dollar 

amounts for settlement costs and 

royalty cap, but otherwise DENIED. 

ECF No. 1470 Panasonic, Qualcomm ¶ 196 DENIED. 

ECF No. 1470 Qualcomm ¶ 198 DENIED. 

ECF No. 1470 Panasonic, Qualcomm ¶ 199 GRANTED as to lines 2-3 of page 27, 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1471 Filed 02/15/19 Page 3 of 5
4

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PARTIES’ REVISED MOTIONS TO SEAL 

PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Motion to 

Seal

Requesting Party or 

Parties

Portions of 

Paragraph

Ruling

but DENIED as to line 1 of page 27. 

ECF No. 1470 Panasonic, Qualcomm ¶ 200 GRANTED as to the specific royalty 

rate and the specific amount of 

royalties paid in protest, but otherwise 

DENIED. 

ECF No. 1470 Panasonic, Qualcomm ¶ 201 GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1470 ZTE, Qualcomm ¶¶ 203, 204, 

206

DENIED. 

ECF No. 1470 ZTE, Qualcomm ¶¶ 209-210 DENIED. 

ECF No. 1470 ZTE, Qualcomm ¶ 211 DENIED as to royalty rates for sales 

in China, but GRANTED as to royalty 

rates for sales outside of China. 

ECF No. 1470 Samsung, Qualcomm ¶ 214 GRANTED as to the upfront fee

amount, but DENIED as to the royalty 

rates in the 1993 Samsung Agreement. 

ECF No. 1470 Samsung, Qualcomm ¶ 216 GRANTED as to the cap on total 

royalties due, but DENIED as to the 

royalty rate in the 2004 Samsung 

Agreement. 

ECF No. 1470 Samsung, Qualcomm ¶ 221 GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1470 Qualcomm ¶ 222 DENIED. 

ECF No. 1470 Samsung, Qualcomm ¶ 227 GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1470 Qualcomm ¶ 228 GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1470 Samsung, Qualcomm ¶ 231 GRANTED as to the upfront fee

amount, but DENIED as to the royalty 

rates in the 1993 LG Agreement. 

ECF No. 1470 Qualcomm ¶ 235 DENIED. 

ECF No. 1470 Intel, 

Motorola/Lenovo

¶ 258 GRANTED only as to specific dollar 

amounts, but otherwise DENIED. 

ECF No. 1470 Qualcomm, Panasonic ¶ 265 DENIED. 

ECF No. 1470 Qualcomm ¶ 266 DENIED. 

ECF No. 1470 Huawei ¶ 398 GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1470 Via ¶¶ 400, 405 GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1470 Via, MediaTek ¶ 406 GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1470 MediaTek, Marvell ¶ 407 DENIED. 

ECF No. 1470 Apple ¶ 409 GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1470 Via ¶ 410 GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1470 Apple ¶ 411 GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1470 Via ¶ 412 GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1470 MediaTek ¶ 413 DENIED. 

ECF No. 1470 Qualcomm ¶ 426 DENIED. 

ECF No. 1470 Qualcomm ¶¶ 427, 438(d) GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1470 Qualcomm ¶¶ 442, 446, DENIED. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1471 Filed 02/15/19 Page 4 of 5
5

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PARTIES’ REVISED MOTIONS TO SEAL 

PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Motion to 

Seal

Requesting Party or 

Parties

Portions of 

Paragraph

Ruling

448

ECF No. 1470 Apple ¶¶ 466-467 GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1470 MediaTek ¶¶ 502-503 DENIED. 

ECF No. 1470 Qualcomm ¶ 524 DENIED. 

ECF No. 1470 Motorola/Lenovo ¶¶ 525, 527 GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1470 Marvell ¶ 543 DENIED. 

ECF No. 1470 ZTE, Qualcomm ¶ 552 DENIED. 

ECF No. 1470 Qualcomm ¶¶ 553-554 DENIED. 

ECF No. 1470 ZTE, Qualcomm ¶ 571 GRANTED. 

ECF No. 1470 Qualcomm ¶ 573 GRANTED. 

The parties shall refile their pretrial proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in 

public redacted form consistent with the above rulings by Friday, February 22, 2019. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15, 2019

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1471 Filed 02/15/19 Page 5 of 5