Bornstein Declaration

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

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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

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

Attorneys for Defendant

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

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

Donn P. Pickett (SBN 72257)

donn.pickett@morganlewis.com

Geoffrey T. Holtz (SBN 191370)

geoffrey.holtz@morganlewis.com

One Market, Spear Street Tower

San Francisco, CA 94105-1126

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. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK

DECLARATION OF GARY A. 

BORNSTEIN IN SUPPORT OF 

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED’S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF ITS

MOTION TO DISMISS AND 

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 

AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
1

Bornstein Declaration

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

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

DECLARATION OF GARY A. BORNSTEIN

I, Gary A. Bornstein, hereby declare as follows:

1. I am a partner at Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, counsel of record for Defendant 

Qualcomm Incorporated.

2. Pursuant to N.D. Cal. Local Rules 7-11 (a) and 79-5 (d)(1)(A), I submit this 

declaration in support of Qualcomm’s Administrative Motion To File Under Seal Portions of Its

Motion To Dismiss and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support. 

3. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, or my knowledge is based 

upon my review of records of this case. If called upon as a witness in this action, I could and 

would testify competently thereto.

4. The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) filed its Complaint on January 17, 2017. 

The same day, the FTC filed an Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of Its 

Complaint (the “FTC’s Motion to Seal”). Dkt. 2.

5. On January 23, 2017, Qualcomm submitted a Response to the FTC’s Motion to 

Seal. Dkt. 11. Qualcomm also submitted the Declarations of John Skousen and Jeffrey Altman 

in Support of Defendant’s Response. Dkts. 12, 13. Those declarations explain the confidential 

nature of the information contained in the FTC’s Complaint, including specifically paragraphs 

103, 105, and 106 of the FTC’s Complaint.

6. On January 25, 2017, the Court found that good cause supported sealing the 

portions of the FTC’s Complaint addressed by the Skousen and Altman Declarations, including 

paragraphs 103, 105, and 106 of the FTC Complaint. Dkt. 17.

7. I have reviewed Qualcomm’s memorandum in support of its Motion to Dismiss. 

That memorandum discusses Qualcomm confidential licensing and business information that is 

contained in paragraphs 103, 105, and 106 of the FTC’s Complaint. Qualcomm seeks to file 
2

Bornstein Declaration

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

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

under seal only the portions of the memorandum in support of its Motion to Dismiss that discuss 

the confidential information contained in these specific paragraphs. As described in the Skousen 

and Altman Declarations, disclosure of this information would cause Qualcomm competitive and 

commercial harm because it would provide competitors and counterparties insights into 

Qualcomm’s business that they would not otherwise have, and which would disadvantage 

Qualcomm in future negotiations with potential licensees and customers.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed on this 3rd day of April, 2017.

/s/ Gary A. Bornstein _______

Gary A. Bornstein