EXHIBIT 1

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 1 of 59
1 RICHARD L. DONALDSON, ESQUIRE

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4 SAN JOSE DIVISION

5

 ________________________________

6

 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

7

 Plaintiff,

8 Case No.

 V. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK-NMC

9

 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, a

10 Delaware corporation,

11 Defendant.

12 ________________________________

13

14 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF

15 RICHARD L. DONALDSON, ESQUIRE

16 WASHINGTON, D.C.

17 WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 15, 2018

18 9:00 A.M.

19

20 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF RICHARD L. DONALDSON,

21 ESQUIRE, a witness herein, taken on behalf of the

22 Defendant, at the Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of

23 Competition, 400 7th Street, Southwest, Washington,

24 D.C.

25 REPORTED BY: MICHELE E. EDDY, RPR, CRR, CRI

REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENTS SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 2 of 59
1 RICHARD L. DONALDSON, ESQUIRE

2 developing any licensing programs or strategies

3 regarding cellular wireless patents?

4 MS. GILLEN: Object to the form.

5 A No, I did not.

6 Q Did you have any involvement at all,

7 when you were at Texas Instruments, in licensing

8 patents related to cellular wireless technologies?

9 MS. GILLEN: Object to the form.

10 A Yes, I did.

11 Q What was that experience?

12 A Well, there were a number of occasions.

13 I can think of a couple that would come to mind.

14 During the period of time where I was employed by

15 TI, Texas Instruments was the major supplier of

16 baseband controllers for wireless phones to Nokia,

17 Ericsson, Motorola, to name the major companies.

18 And particularly with respect to at least Nokia,

19 there was a requirement from Nokia concerning the

20 supply of the chips that Texas Instruments was

21 providing. TI was pretty much the sole supplier.

22 And their concern was a potential disruption in

23 that supply for whatever cause.

24 And as part of that, I negotiated

25 licenses with Nokia that included a right under

REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENTS SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 3 of 59
1 RICHARD L. DONALDSON, ESQUIRE

2 Texas Instruments' patents that related to the

3 manufacture of these type of products and also

4 included technical know-how and manufacturing

5 processes, a complete technology package that they

6 could use to go to a third party and immediately

7 implement -- have them implement a manufacturing

8 process to make the identical products in the

9 event that TI was unable to provide these

10 products. So that was a license that included not

11 only patents that TI had that covered these

12 devices, the baseband controllers, but also

13 know-how, copyrights, and things of that nature.

14 Q So you mentioned the license that you

15 worked on with Nokia.

16 At the time you were at Texas

17 Instruments, did you have any other involvement in

18 licensing patents related to cellular wireless

19 technology?

20 A Certainly related to that aspect, I did

21 studies of patents held by InterDigital, for sure.

22 They were active in licensing cellular patents.

23 TI was manufacturing products that potentially

24 could be subject to those patents so I had a

25 complete investigation done by people in my

REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENTS SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 4 of 59
1 RICHARD L. DONALDSON, ESQUIRE

2 department.

3 And, also, we started up an analysis

4 program. I had an organization that I included

5 what I called patent strategy managers from

6 different patent attorneys who worked for me who

7 specialized in various areas, and one of the

8 areas, given the involvement that TI had in

9 manufacturing baseband controllers, the fact that

10 companies like InterDigital, Qualcomm was in the

11 market of studying these industries, studying this

12 technology, what TI was doing, what potential

13 risks there were to TI in that business, what we

14 would need to do to obtain licenses if it came to

15 that.

16 So we did a pretty substantial studies

17 on patents related to baseband controllers in

18 particular.

19 Q Let me focus my question a little bit.

20 So you mentioned the licensing work that you did

21 with respect to Nokia.

22 During the time you were at Texas

23 Instruments, were you involved in negotiating any

24 other licenses for patented technology in the

25 cellular wireless space?

REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENTS SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 5 of 59
1 RICHARD L. DONALDSON, ESQUIRE

2 MS. GILLEN: Object to the form.

3 THE WITNESS: Could I have that question

4 back, please.

5 (Record read.)

6 A Let me explain it this way. I

7 negotiated a number of licenses with various

8 manufacturers in the semiconductor industry. The

9 scope of those licenses included the right to

10 manufacture products under any patents that they

11 owned that related to cellular industry, and this

12 involved basically all the Japanese and Korean

13 companies who -- and European companies who had

14 patents related to that. The license agreement

15 was not only directed to cellular, but it

16 certainly was structured and discussed to include

17 TI's right to use any patents that they had that

18 TI used in manufacturing its products.

19 Q Any others, beyond the licenses you just

20 mentioned, that TI entered into with certain

21 Japanese companies?

22 MS. GILLEN: Object to the form.

23 A Well, actually, it's inclusive,

24 Japanese, European, Korean, and U.S.

25 manufacturers. We had license -- I negotiated

REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENTS SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 6 of 59
1 RICHARD L. DONALDSON, ESQUIRE

2 licenses with all of these companies. And the way

3 we structured our licenses, we were careful to

4 include -- since we were doing the business with

5 Nokia and Motorola and Ericsson, and the fact that

6 this was getting to be an area where people were

7 asserting patents, like InterDigital was doing,

8 for sure, that was the topic, and that was

9 something that we were careful to be sure were

10 included in our licenses.

11 Q So these were broad licenses that

12 included patents related to cellular wireless

13 technology as well as patents in other

14 technological areas. Is that correct?

15 A That is correct, yes.

16 Q When you were at Texas Instruments, did

17 you negotiate any licenses that solely involved

18 standard essential patents in the cellular

19 wireless technological area?

20 A I don't recall any that were solely

21 limited to standard essential patents. They were

22 broader, that would include other patents as well.

23 Q Now, in your report you mention work in

24 the area of patent licensing that you did while

25 you were at Texas Instruments and then also work

REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENTS SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 7 of 59
1 RICHARD L. DONALDSON, ESQUIRE

2 that you've done since leaving Texas Instruments.

3 Correct?

4 A That is correct.

5 Q Your work since you've left Texas

6 Instruments in the area of patent licensing, has

7 that all been as a retained expert witness in the

8 context of litigation?

9 A No.

10 Q What work have you done since leaving

11 Texas Instruments in the area of patent licensing

12 other than work as an expert witness?

13 A As a consultant for just developing

14 patent strategies, licensing strategies. And with

15 one company I don't think I'm at liberty to give

16 the name of, a Canadian company -- that was

17 involved in standard essential patents with

18 respect to a particular product that is still

19 under development, in fact -- I developed their

20 patent strategies, their licensing strategies,

21 terms and conditions for their license, the type

22 of royalty that they should ask for. And then I

23 have taken other engagements that -- I was trying

24 to think of the scope that you were -- what was

25 the scope that you were asking for in your

REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENTS SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 8 of 59
1 RICHARD L. DONALDSON, ESQUIRE

2 question?

3 Q Well, it's pretty broad. It was just

4 what work have you done since leaving Texas

5 Instruments in the area of patent licensing other

6 than working as an expert witness?

7 A "Other than working as an expert." I

8 have been an arbitrator in some cases. I'm not

9 sure whether that would qualify as an expert

10 witness. It was based upon my experience in

11 licensing, and companies retain me to settle some

12 disputes.

13 Q Understood.

14 Again, let me focus this. Since leaving

15 Texas Instruments, have you done any work

16 negotiating patent license agreements?

17 A I have.

18 Q Could you describe your experience

19 negotiating patent license agreements since

20 leaving Texas Instruments.

21 A The one I mentioned earlier, the

22 Canadian company having to do with standard

23 essential patents, involved negotiations with

24 other manufacturers. I also was involved in

25 negotiations with respect to fiber optics network

REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENTS SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 9 of 59
1 RICHARD L. DONALDSON, ESQUIRE

2 for connecting phone lines across the United

3 States. I was involved in negotiations for some

4 other patents that related to manufacturing

5 processes that were used in semiconductor

6 manufacture and actually participated in the

7 negotiations. That was a part of my job.

8 Q Since leaving Texas Instruments, have

9 you been involved -- other than as an expert

10 witness, have you been involved in negotiating any

11 licenses for standard essential patents in the

12 cellular wireless technology area?

13 A I'm trying to think of how broad that

14 definition might be. Certainly, in one of the

15 situations, there were standard essential patents

16 that were used in connection with cell phones and

17 actually relate to like a GSM or CDMA, but it

18 related to functionality of a cell phone, an

19 important functionality that are in smartphones,

20 put it that way. So I was involved in those

21 actual negotiations.

22 Q Did the patents at issue in the

23 negotiations you just mentioned, were those

24 standard essential patents?

25 A Yes.

REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENTS SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 10 of 59
1 RICHARD L. DONALDSON, ESQUIRE

2 Q You didn't do any searches through the

3 databases or anything of that nature. Is that

4 correct?

5 A Through the -- I'm not sure --

6 Q I'm sorry. You didn't do any review of

7 the document productions in this case or anything

8 like that other than what was provided to you by

9 counsel.

10 A That --

11 Q Is that correct?

12 MS. GILLEN: Object to the form.

13 A Yes, that's correct.

14 Q So if you wanted to go about a process

15 to disprove your conclusion, in other words, to

16 show that, yeah, Qualcomm's policies and tactics

17 were not the motivating factor of the licenses,

18 can you think of a way that one might do that?

19 MS. GILLEN: Objection.

20 A Well, you could call all these people

21 who provided sworn testimony liars. I mean, I

22 accept they were under oath, and I accept that

23 what they testified to was true, and I don't see

24 how you then say, well, even though they said that

25 based upon this, they were forced to take a

REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENTS SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 11 of 59
1 RICHARD L. DONALDSON, ESQUIRE

2 license, that that really didn't have an effect.

3 I'm not sure how you get to answer your question

4 of if I -- the only way I can do that is to

5 discount the testimony.

6 Q Well, that's my question. Can you think

7 of any other method that one might employ to go

8 about and try to disprove your opinion and show

9 that this link between the royalty rates and

10 Qualcomm's chip policies does not, in fact, exist?

11 MS. GILLEN: Object to the form.

12 A The only thing I could think of, and I

13 don't want to do your job for you, but -- it's

14 kind of a funny question to ask -- potentially

15 there would be situations where this issue never

16 came up about disruption of chip supply or

17 something with one or more specific licensees, and

18 you could say, see, it didn't affect them. You

19 could argue that.

20 But, on the other hand, you can't

21 discount in these situations , who

22 have offered direct testimony that it did have an

23 effect, the existence of one or more examples

24 where the question never came up does not offset

25 the testimony of what actually did happen with

REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENTS SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 12 of 59
1 RICHARD L. DONALDSON, ESQUIRE

2 major OEMs.

3 Q All right. So one method to sort of

4 test this proposition is you could look at other

5 licensing negotiations beyond what you've cited.

6 Correct?

7 MS. GILLEN: Object to the form.

8 A You could attempt that, but, as I just

9 explained, that does not offset the direct sworn

10 testimony of these people who actually were

11 affected by the policy.

12 Q I understand.

13 Can you think of any other method one

14 might employ to test your opinion and determine

15 whether or not Qualcomm's chip supply policies

16 did, in fact, drive licensing negotiations?

17 MS. GILLEN: Object to the form.

18 A I don't really see anything that comes

19 to mind.

20 Q Again, let me ask you to assume some

21 facts.

22 If the head licensing negotiators from

23 100 other licensees came forward and said,

24 Qualcomm's chip supply issues had nothing to do

25 with the licensing negotiations and our agreement

REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENTS SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 13 of 59
EXHIBIT 2

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 14 of 59
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2 SAN JOSE DIVISION

3 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,§

 §

4 Plaintiff, §

 §

5 VS. § CASE NUMBER

 § 5:17-cv-00220-LHK-NMC

6 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, a §

Delaware Corporation, §

7 §

 Defendant. §

8

9

10

11

12

13 VIDEOTAPED ORAL DEPOSITION OF

14 JEFFREY G. ANDREWS, Ph.D.

15 Austin, Texas

16 August 10, 2018

17 9:07 a.m.

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 Reported by:

25 Micheal A. Johnson, RDR, CRR

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 15 of 59
67

Andrews, Ph.D.

FTC v. Qualcomm, Inc. 8/10/2018

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555

For The Record, Inc.

1 Q. And you're not offering an opinion that

2 Qualcomm's contributions to 4G are more valuable

3 to -- than its contributions to 3G; is that correct?

4 A. That's true, I've made no such comparison

5 or claim.

6 Q. And no such comparison to its

7 contributions to 4G versus 2G?

8 A. Again, 2G is somewhat vague because that

9 includes several different, quite separate

10 standards, but, yeah, I have not compared like

11 their -- you know, their quantity and quality of

12 their contributions to LTE to, say, IS-95.

13 Q. Or any other standard?

14 A. Or any other 2G standard or 3G standard.

15 Q. That wasn't part of the scope of your

16 opinion you're offering in your report?

17 A. No.

18 Q. If I could turn your attention to

19 paragraph 8 that's on page 7 of your report. It's

20 the first sentence that states, "Additionally, the

21 patents discussed in this report demonstrate that

22 Qualcomm's portfolio has continued to grow and

23 expand over time."

24 Do you see that?

25 A. Yes.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 16 of 59
68

Andrews, Ph.D.

FTC v. Qualcomm, Inc. 8/10/2018

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555

For The Record, Inc.

1 Q. What do you mean by "grow"?

2 A. Simply that, you know, Qualcomm has been

3 developing new patents, you know, for each new

4 successive standard and each new successive release

5 of the standard.

6 Q. When you use the term "grow," is this a

7 technical definition that's used in the industry?

8 A. I think it's just the plain and ordinary

9 meaning.

10 Q. So by "grow," you mean that Qualcomm had

11 one more patent than they had previously?

12 A. Right. Yes.

13 Q. Are you offering an opinion as to the

14 relative growth of Qualcomm's portfolio compared to

15 others?

16 A. No.

17 Q. Is there a standard for determining under

18 what circumstances a patent portfolio is considered

19 to have grown? Are you aware of any?

20 A. You know, like a standard, meaning a

21 standard basis of comparison?

22 Q. Correct.

23 A. No.

24 Q. What do you mean by "expand" when you say

25 that it's continued to grow and expand over time?

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 17 of 59
69

Andrews, Ph.D.

FTC v. Qualcomm, Inc. 8/10/2018

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555

For The Record, Inc.

1 A. Expand would kind of just simply mean the

2 total number of patents that they have, you know,

3 under ownership, you know, would be an increasing

4 number with time.

5 Q. And how is that different than your

6 understanding of grow?

7 A. You know, at least me looking at this

8 sentence now, you know, those two words are kind of

9 synonymous and you could eliminate one of them and

10 the sentence would still be -- have the same

11 meaning.

12 Q. And when you state "over time,"

13 specifically what time period are you referring to?

14 A. I'm thinking from, you know, the

15 beginning of Qualcomm's involvement in cellular

16 systems, which would be, you know, around the IS-95

17 time frame, to the present time. I mean, obviously

18 many of the things they've been submitting lately

19 aren't actually issued as patents yet, but, you

20 know, I'm aware that they continue to innovate at a

21 very high rate and, you know, submit lots of patent

22 applications.

23 Q. And is your opinion about the growth of

24 Qualcomm's portfolio solely based on the patents

25 that you're referencing in your report?

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 18 of 59
70

Andrews, Ph.D.

FTC v. Qualcomm, Inc. 8/10/2018

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555

For The Record, Inc.

1 A. No.

2 Q. What else is it based on?

3 A. I mean, you know, largely it's just based

4 on my own knowledge and experience and I visit

5 Qualcomm, you know, not infrequently. I've given

6 several invited lectures there. Their research

7 center seems to be monotonically increasing in size,

8 you know, working on many different things,

9 different standards. You know, I think I've also,

10 you know, seen various plots that show their patent

11 portfolios, size, increasing over time, but I don't

12 remember the exact numbers.

13 Q. Did you do any independent analysis of

14 Qualcomm's patent portfolio as a whole?

15 A. No.

16 Q. Do you know if Qualcomm currently holds

17 more valid patents than it did 20 years ago?

18 A. I would be extremely surprised if they

19 didn't hold a lot more valid patents now than

20 20 years ago, but I don't know the exact numbers.

21 Q. You did not do that analysis as part of

22 your report?

23 A. No.

24 Q. If you turn to paragraph 223. It's on

25 page 95. It's I guess the only sentence in that

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 19 of 59
71

Andrews, Ph.D.

FTC v. Qualcomm, Inc. 8/10/2018

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555

For The Record, Inc.

1 paragraph. It states, "Their leadership and

2 initiative in this direction is a major reason that

3 Qualcomm has an extraordinarily broad and deep

4 portfolio of patents on carrier aggregation."

5 Do you see that?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. What is the basis for the statement that

8 they have an extraordinarily broad and deep

9 portfolio of patents on carrier aggregation?

10 A. Well, I've looked at many of them.

11 Q. And when you say "many of them," are you

12 just referring to the patents that appear in your

13 report?

14 A. I've looked at others as well.

15 Q. Okay. And did you do an assessment of

16 those other patents to determine whether they are

17 essential to the standard?

18 A. In some cases.

19 Q. What was your conclusion?

20 MR. HALL: I'm going to object to

21 that to the extent it goes beyond the stipulation on

22 expert discovery and is inquiring into drafts of

23 Dr. Andrews' report or drafts of his analyses or

24 other work product. And instruct the witness not to

25 answer.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 20 of 59
EXHIBIT 3

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 21 of 59
1 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

2

3

4 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, )

5 Plaintiff, )

6 vs. ) Case No.

7 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, a ) 5:17-cv-00220-LHK-NMC

8 Delaware corporation, )

9 Defendant. )

10

11

12

13 The videotaped deposition of DR. BERTRAM

14 HUBER, called by the Federal Trade Commission, for

15 examination, taken before Stephanie A. Battaglia, CSR

16 and Notary Public in and for the County of DuPage and

17 State of Illinois, at 191 North Wacker Drive, Suite

18 2700, Chicago, Illinois, on August 8, 2018, 9:16 a.m.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 22 of 59
29

Huber

FTC v. Qualcomm, Inc. 8/8/2018

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555

For The Record, Inc.

1 of additional in-between, in-between meetings with

2 very few participants to try to bridge gaps or discuss

3 specific issues, especially among those who were more

4 active in the whole discussion and debate process. So

5 it is really many, many meetings which took place.

6 Q. And so the communications between

7 meetings that you described, would that be on a

8 one-on-one basis or would it involve a larger group?

9 A. Well, it was not typically one-on-one, it

10 is typically some few representatives from a few

11 companies getting together and meeting, but of course

12 it was also telephone and e-mail exchange, I think,

13 not really at that time, fax exchange rather in the

14 early times.

15 (Document identified as Exhibit CX0058 for

16 identification.)

17 BY MS. GILLEN:

18 Q. It would be easier to go through this in

19 writing, this has been premarked as Exhibit CX0058.

20 This is Exhibit CX0058.

21 Do you recognize this document as the

22 expert report you submitted in this case?

23 A. Yes, it looks like my expert report.

24 Q. So I want to focus on page -- if you

25 could turn to page 4 to start, which is CX0058-007.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 23 of 59
30

Huber

FTC v. Qualcomm, Inc. 8/8/2018

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555

For The Record, Inc.

1 A. Yes, I have it.

2 Q. And under item B.2. titled Participated

3 in drafting ETSI IPR Policy, the second full sentence

4 reads, "Drafting was a collaborative process,

5 involving numerous members of the Committee, guided by

6 ETSI's mission to create standards with broad and

7 general use in the interest of end-users while

8 balancing interest of IPR holders and implementers."

9 Do you see that?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And what is your basis for this

12 understanding of the ETSI mission?

13 A. Well, the ETSI commission is described in

14 the ETSI statutes, and I am elaborating this in detail

15 in my report, and if you wish we can go directly

16 there. And of course it is also based on my

17 experience because I was there at that time.

18 Q. So the mission was understood by all

19 involved in drafting process?

20 A. Well, I would assume so.

21 Q. What do you mean by broad and general use

22 in the interest of end-users?

23 A. Well, I mean standardization in very

24 general terms always has the overall intention that

25 there must be some positive effect out there in the

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 24 of 59
56

Huber

FTC v. Qualcomm, Inc. 8/8/2018

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555

For The Record, Inc.

1 at to set a royalty rate. Can you give me some

2 examples of some of the factors that you would look

3 at?

4 A. I think I cannot. I mean, historically I

5 could not recall any or all the details of specific

6 factors that we were looking at, and in the more

7 present context I must say have not formed any opinion

8 which factors should rather be employed or not absent

9 what I just said where I think what is reasonably

10 cannot and should not and could not be applied for

11 that history of the ETSI IPR Policy.

12 Q. So turning to the bottom of Page 4 of

13 your report, the section titled Assignment, does this

14 section adequately or accurately describe the

15 assignment you were engaged to undertake?

16 A. Without rereading, of course it does.

17 Q. The second sentence of the assignment

18 section states that you were asked to respond to

19 certain statements by the FTC in its pleadings in this

20 litigation.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Have you reviewed the complaint filed by

23 the FTC?

24 A. I have, but not in the finest detail and

25 not in all elements, but, yes, I have.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 25 of 59
57

Huber

FTC v. Qualcomm, Inc. 8/8/2018

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555

For The Record, Inc.

1 Q. Have you reviewed any other pleadings in

2 this litigation?

3 A. Any other pleadings would be, for

4 example?

5 Q. Like a motion to dismiss or other

6 briefing relating to that.

7 A. Not what I recall instantly.

8 Q. And the sentence that starts on this page

9 and extends to the next page says that you were asked

10 to review the expert reports of Dr. Karl Shapiro,

11 Dr. Robert Akl, Mr. Richard Donaldson, Mr. Michael

12 Lasinski, and respond to certain statements therein,

13 what steps did you take to assess the approaches used

14 by the FTC's experts?

15 MR. SWEDLOW: Objection.

16 THE WITNESS: The positions taken by

17 these experts you just named, let me say, the majority

18 were known to me from other cases before and so it was

19 not all new to me.

20 From my background, my knowledge about

21 the ETSI IPR Policy, I was looking at these positions

22 specifically vis-a-vis the ETSI IPR Policy and from

23 the point of view of the ETSI IPR Policy and whether

24 they are matching or they are non-matching and then of

25 course beyond that whether they are convincing from an

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 26 of 59
58

Huber

FTC v. Qualcomm, Inc. 8/8/2018

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555

For The Record, Inc.

1 intellectual logical point of view and, of course,

2 maybe I have to add that, also from an industry

3 practice view because likely none of these three

4 experts has abundant experience in this -- in

5 industry, except for Mr. Donaldson, of course, but

6 that was largely in a different industry and it was a

7 longer time ago.

8 BY MS. GILLEN:

9 Q. So would it be fair to say that your

10 assessment of the FTC's experts opinions is based on

11 your understanding of the ETSI IPR Policy?

12 A. And my industrial experience and -- I

13 mean, all I know about this subject and topic since

14 decades and I have learned over time in addition.

15 And, of course, my professional experience and

16 background.

17 Q. Is it correct that your assessment of the

18 FTC's expert opinions is not based on any economic

19 analysis?

20 A. It is not precisely on an economic

21 analysis because, as you know, I don't have an

22 economic background, even though I have some knowledge

23 in economics in the sense that the legal education in

24 Germany comprises some course in economics, that is

25 one point, but more importantly my experience having

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 27 of 59
59

Huber

FTC v. Qualcomm, Inc. 8/8/2018

(301) 870-8025 - www.ftrinc.net - (800) 921-5555

For The Record, Inc.

1 worked in industry for several decades that of course

2 give me some general economic understanding but, of

3 course, I am not an economic expert.

4 Q. Are your opinions based on any analysis

5 you have done regarding the valuation of Qualcomm's

6 patent portfolio in any way?

7 A. I have not done any valuation of

8 Qualcomm's patent portfolio, neither from the

9 technical side nor from the commercial valuation side.

10 Q. And have you done any analysis of

11 Qualcomm's license agreements?

12 A. I have not gone into details of

13 Qualcomm's license agreements, no.

14 Q. Have you reviewed any of Qualcomm's

15 license agreements?

16 MR. SWEDLOW: I will object.

17 Do you mean for this case or --

18 BY MS. GILLEN:

19 Q. For this case, yes or no is fine, I am

20 not asking about any discussions you have had with

21 counsel.

22 MR. SWEDLOW: I mean, I am not trying to

23 coach him, but he is also an expert in the Apple case

24 and the disclosures were right about the same time.

25 That is the only --

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 28 of 59
EXHIBIT 4

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 29 of 59
7. Value Share QAPPCMSD07786307.xlsx

Published: Aug 2017

7. Value Share

Global Handset Revenue Share by Vendor (%) 2014 2015 2016

Apple 36.3 % 43.2 % 39.2 %

Samsung 25.2 % 21.4 % 20.5 %

Huawei 2.7 % 4.5 % 6.3 %

OPPO 2.2 % 2.7 % 4.9 %

vivo 1.6 % 1.7 % 4.2 %

Xiaomi 3.2 % 2.8 % 2.3 %

LG 4.1 % 3.1 % 2.6 %

Lenovo-Motorola 3.3 % 2.2 % 1.9 %

Sony 3.4 % 2.5 % 1.8 %

ZTE (Nubia) 1.0 % 1.0 % 1.3 %

Gionee ~ ~ 1.4 %

Meizu ~ 0.7 % 0.7 %

Asus ~ ~ 0.7 %

HTC 1.8 % 1.0 % 0.6 %

TCL-Alcatel 1.1 % 0.9 % 0.8 %

TCL-Alcatel 0.6 % 0.4 % 0.3 %

TCL-Alcatel ~ ~ ~

TCL-Alcatel ~ ~ 0.5 %

TCL-Alcatel 1.0 % 0.5 % 0.4 %

TCL-Alcatel ~ ~ 1.0 %

TCL-Alcatel 0.5 % 0.2 % 0.1 %

TCL-Alcatel 2.9 % 1.3 % 0.4 %

TCL-Alcatel 9.2 % 9.8 % 8.2 %

Total Industry 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.2 %

VALUE SHARE: Global Handset Revenue, ASP and Profit in Q2 2017

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 30 of 59
7. Value Share QAPPCMSD07786307.xlsx

Published: Aug 2017

7. Value Share

VALUE SHARE: Global Handset Revenue, ASP and Profit in Q2 2017

Global Handset Profits by Vendor (% Share) * 2014 2015 2016

Apple 73.1 % 83.5 % 79.0 %

Samsung 22.8 % 12.7 % 14.6 %

Huawei 0.4 % 0.9 % 1.6 %

OPPO 0.4 % 0.6 % 1.5 %

vivo 0.3 % 0.4 % 1.3 %

Xiaomi 0.8 % 0.6 % 0.5 %

Gionee ~ ~ 0.2 %

ZTE (Nubia) 0.1 % 0.1 % 0.1 %

Sony 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 %

Sharp 0.2 % 0.1 % 0.2 %

Asus ~ ~ 0.0 %

Microsoft 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 %

Micromax ~ ~ 0.0 %

BlackBerry 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 %

HMD (Nokia) ~ ~ ~

TCL-Alcatel 0.3 % 0.2 % 0.0 %

LeEco ~ ~ 0.0 %

Coolpad 0.1 % 0.0 % 0.0 %

Meizu ~ 0.1 % 0.0 %

HTC 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 %

LG 0.5 % 0.0 % 0.0 %

Lenovo-Motorola 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 %

Others 0.9 % 0.9 % 0.9 %

Total Industry 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 %

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 31 of 59
7. Value Share QAPPCMSD07786307.xlsx

Published: Aug 2017

7. Value Share

VALUE SHARE: Global Handset Revenue, ASP and Profit in Q2 2017

Global Handset Shipments Share by Vendor (%) 2014 2015 2016

Samsung 22.1 % 20.7 % 19.2 %

Apple 10.5 % 12.3 % 11.4 %

Huawei 4.2 % 5.7 % 7.4 %

OPPO 1.4 % 2.1 % 4.6 %

Xiaomi 3.3 % 3.8 % 3.1 %

vivo 1.4 % 2.1 % 3.8 %

LG 4.3 % 3.8 % 3.7 %

ZTE (Nubia) 3.0 % 3.3 % 3.4 %

Lenovo-Motorola 5.1 % 4.0 % 2.7 %

TCL-Alcatel 3.8 % 3.8 % 3.3 %

Gionee ~ ~ 1.8 %

HMD (Nokia) ~ ~ ~

Meizu ~ 1.1 % 1.2 %

Micromax ~ ~ 1.9 %

Asus ~ ~ 0.9 %

Sony 2.2 % 1.6 % 0.8 %

Coolpad 2.2 % 1.2 % 0.8 %

HTC 0.9 % 0.6 % 0.5 %

LeEco ~ ~ 1.1 %

Sharp 0.3 % 0.2 % 0.2 %

BlackBerry 0.4 % 0.2 % 0.1 %

Microsoft 10.9 % 6.4 % 2.1 %

Others 24.0 % 27.1 % 26.2 %

Total Industry 100.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 %

Please note that Total Industry Handset Operating Profit Share in this Excel tab is calculated using realized positive industry profits in tab 6, row 80, and is based on historical exchange rates.

* For vendors reporting losses, negative share estimates are reduced to zero marketshare, to represent realized profits only. 

* Profit is defined as operating profit, which is the profit from the core business activity.

Copyright © Strategy Analytics 2017

Although great care has been taken to ensure the accuracy and completeness of this report, Strategy Analytics is unable to 

accept any legal responsibility for any actions taken on the basis of the information contained therein. Circulation or 

disclosure in whole or in part of this report outside the authorised recipient organisations is expressly forbidden without the 

prior written permission of Strategy Analytics.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 32 of 59
EXHIBIT 5

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 33 of 59
FILED UNDER SEAL

REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENTS SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 34 of 59
EXHIBIT 6

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 35 of 59
FILE PRODUCED NATIVELY

BOD &rat Plan Final 09-23-08.ppl

FOIA CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED BY QUALCOMM Q2014F1C00045280

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY Q2017MDL1_02944278

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 36 of 59
QUALCOMM Privileged & Confidential 1

Strategic Plan Review 2008

Strategic Plan Review

September 15, 2008

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 37 of 59
QUALCOMM Privileged & Confidential 7

Strategic Plan Review 2008

HS Market Share by Vendor

18% 15% 16% 17%

6% 9% 8%

7% 9% 8% 7%

12% 14% 15% 15%

22% 14% 9% 9%

35% 39% 41% 39%

7%

1% 3% 5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

CY06 CY07 CY08e CY09e

Nokia

RIMM &

Apple

Motorola

Samsung

SonyEricsson

LG

Others

Source: SA, Bank of America.

Impacts Starting to be Seen

 Nokia, Apple, and RIM (most vertically integrated OEM’s) gaining share

 Increased competition for 3rd party OS share, which will create key 

leverage point for delivery of future functionality

 QC benefits if multiple 3rd party OS’s maintain share

Devices 

(M)

*Source: SA, Bank of America

3G Handset Forecast by OS

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

CY08 CY09 CY10 CY11 CY12 CY13

LiMo

Windows

S60

Non-HLOS ~$3B

~$23B

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 38 of 59
EXHIBIT 7

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 39 of 59
FILED UNDER SEAL

REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENTS SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 40 of 59
EXHIBIT 8

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 41 of 59
FILED UNDER SEAL

REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENTS SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 42 of 59
EXHIBIT 9

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 43 of 59
· · · · · · · · · · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

· · · · · · · FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

· 

· · · ·FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION· · · · · ·Case No.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 5:17-cv-00220-LHK-

· · · · · ·Plaintiff,· · · · · · · · · · ·NMC

· · · · · v.

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Case No.

· · · ·QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, a· · · · · ·5:17-md-2773-LHK

· · · ·Delaware corporation,

· 

· · · · · ·Defendant.

· 

· · · ·______________________________

· 

· · · ·IN RE: QUALCOMM ANTITRUST

· · · ·LITIGATION

· · · ·______________________________

· 

· · · · · ·*** TRANSCRIPT MARKED HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL ***

· 

· · · · ·VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF CRISTIANO AMON, VOLUME I

· 

· · · · · · · · ·Monday, March 12, 2018, 8:07 a.m.

· 

· · · ·4655 Executive Drive, Suite 1500, San Diego, California

· 

· · · Reported by:

· · · Harry Alan Palter

· · · CSR No. 7708, Certified LiveNote Reporter

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 44 of 59
·1· ·meeting, and we will have a list of topics to cover

·2· ·or the topics that I want to cover -- usually some

·3· ·actions or market updates.

·4· · · · Q· · ·The first -- there's a set of three

·5· ·Arabic numerals directly under 12-7-15.· And then

·6· ·there's a couple other dates.· I just want to get

·7· ·your understanding of -- halfway down the page,

·8· ·there's an Arabic numeral circled.· Appears to me

·9· ·that says, 

11· · · · · · · Did I read that accurately?

12· · · · A· · ·That is correct.

13· · · · Q· · ·And what does it read under that? I

14· ·cannot read that text on the next line.· Something,

15· ·

16· · · · A· · 

18· · · · Q· · ·What do you understand that to mean,

19· ·sitting here today?

20· · · · · · · MR. EVEN:· Objection.· Foundation.

21· · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Don't remember.· Let me

22· ·read more for context.

23· · · · · · · I don't remember.· I have a vague memory

24· ·they could be a note to myself about 

 I

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 45 of 59
·1· ·don't recall.

·2· ·BY MR. MATHESON:

·3· · · · Q· · ·Now, it looks to me that you have

·4· ·12-7-15, Rafael synch, and then there's a line down

·5· ·the page followed by 12-7-15, some other thing, and

·6· ·a line, 12-8-15 and some notes, a line, and 12-9-15,

·7· ·with some notes.· Does the process of notetaking you

·8· ·described suggest to you, sitting here today, that

·9· ·12-9-15, -- so does that

10· ·suggest to you that the text that follows that are

11· ·notes you took on 12-9-15?

12· · · · A· · ·That's my --

13· · · · · · · MR. EVEN:· Objection.· Vague.

14· · · · · · · Go ahead.

15· · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· That's my interpretation,

16· ·looking at this right now.

17· ·BY MR. MATHESON:

18· · · · Q· · ·So sitting here today, what does -- what

19· ·does the material that follows 12-9-15 refer to?

20· · · · · · · MR. EVEN:· Objection.· Vague.

21· · · · · · · If you recall, go ahead.

22· · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· My interpretation, looking

23· ·at those notes right now, is probably my notes of 

24· ·

25· ·

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 46 of 59
·1· ·

·2· ·BY MR. MATHESON:

·3· · · · Q· · ·The first line under 

·4· says, right?

·5· · · · A· · ·Yes.

·6· · · · Q· · ·Next is, 

 right?

·8· · · · A· · ·Yes.

·9· · · · Q· · ·And those both relate to notes you took

10· ·pursuant to right?

11· · · · · · · MR. EVEN:· Objection.· Foundation.

12· · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· That is correct.· The way I

13· ·read it is, my notes of -- of their description of

14· ·

15· ·BY MR. MATHESON:

16· · · · Q· · ·And the text that follows the Arabic

17· ·numeral 1, 

18· · also relates to notes relevant to

19· ·

20· · · · · · · MR. EVEN:· Same objection.

21· · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· That is correct.· It's

22· ·related to 

23· ·BY MR. MATHESON:

24· · · · Q· · ·And who does Eric refer to?· Is that

25· ·Mr. Eric Reifschneider?

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 47 of 59
·1· · · · A· · ·That's my understanding right now.

·2· · · · Q· · ·If you could flip to the last page of the

·3· ·document, which is Bates-numbered -- I should have

·4· ·said the Bate number that appears on the first page

·5· ·of this document is Q2014FTC02874689.

·6· · · · A· · ·4689 -- that's the first one.

·7· · · · Q· · ·And the last page of this document is

·8· ·Q2014FTC02874694.

·9· · · · A· · ·Ready.

10· · · · Q· · ·Very end of this page reads, quote:

11· 

12· ·

13· · · · · · · Did I read that correct?

14· · · · A· · ·Yes.· You do read that correctly.

15· · · · Q· · ·Or could that be · I can't

16· ·tell.

17· · · · A· · 

18· · · · Q· · 

19· · · · · · · What did you mean when you wrote, quote,

20· 

21· ·

22· · · · · · · MR. EVEN:· Objection.· Foundation.

23· · · · · · · If you recall, go ahead.

24· · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't recall the

25· ·specifics.· If it is -- if I wrote between quotes,

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 48 of 59
·1· ·it is probably because it was to remind me that's

·2· ·what the customer said.

·3· ·BY MR. MATHESON:

·4· · · · Q· · ·Do you recall being told by that

·5· ·

·6· ·

·7· · · · · · · MR. EVEN:· Objection.· Asked and

·8· ·answered.

·9· · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I'm looking at this

10· ·document right now.· Here where I am, I don't have

11· ·that memory.· So I'm just speaking by looking at the

12· ·document.

13· ·BY MR. MATHESON:

14· · · · Q· · ·But it would be ordinary practice when

15· ·you wrote things in quotes in the notes you took to

16· ·yourself to be accurate in the substance of what you

17· ·wrote; right?

18· · · · · · · MR. EVEN:· Objection.

19· · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Sometimes it could be from

20· .· Sometimes could be somebody that had

21· ·represented to me it is from · So I don't

22· ·know.· But, you know, in general, I'll write, you

23· ·know, notes as accurate as I -- as I know them to

24· ·be.

25· ·///

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 49 of 59
·1· ·BY MR. MATHESON:

·2· · · · Q· · ·On the top of that page, it reads:

·3· ·

·4· ·

·5· · · · A· · ·That is correct.

·6· · · · Q· · ·What did you mean when you wrote that in

·7· ·your notes?

·8· · · · A· · ·Exactly what it said.· 

·9· ·

10· 

11· ·

12· ·

13· ·

14· ·

15· · · · Q· · t

16· ·

17· · · · A· · 

18· · · · Q· · 

19· 

20· ·

21· · · · · · · MR. EVEN:· Objection.· Asked and

22· ·answered.

23· · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· 

24· 

25· ·

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 50 of 59
EXHIBIT 10

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 51 of 59
FILED UNDER SEAL

REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENTS SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 52 of 59
EXHIBIT 11

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 53 of 59
FILED UNDER SEAL

REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENTS SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 54 of 59
EXHIBIT 12

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 55 of 59
FILED UNDER SEAL

REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENTS SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 56 of 59
EXHIBIT 13

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 57 of 59
From: Wise, David

To: Rogers, Alex; Martin, Roger; Cianflone, David; Snyder, Mark (Corp Litigation)

CC: Wise, David

Sent: 12/15/2015 7:31:47 PM

Subject: 

Attachments: 

Slides from yesterday.

Dave

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY Q2014FTC03584363

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 58 of 59
FILED UNDER SEAL

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 869-7 Filed 09/24/18 Page 59 of 59