JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK-NMC

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

Counsel Listed on Signature Page

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-NMC

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT 

STATEMENT

DATE: September 12, 2018

TIME: 2:00 p.m.

CTRM: Courtroom 8

JUDGE: Hon. Lucy H. Koh

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 820 Filed 09/05/18 Page 1 of 7
1 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK-NMC

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

Pursuant to the Court’s July 20, 2018 Order Continuing Further Case Management 

Conference (ECF No. 783), Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) and Defendant 

Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) (collectively, the “Parties”) have met and conferred and 

hereby submit this Joint Case Management Statement, which reports on developments since the 

Parties filed the July 18, 2018 Joint Case Management Statement (ECF No. 780).

I. EXPERT DISCOVERY

On July 26, 2018, Plaintiff FTC served four rebuttal expert reports. Between August 2,

2018, and August 16, 2018, the Parties completed expert depositions.

II. PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS

On August 30, 2018, Plaintiff FTC filed the following motions: (i) to exclude portions of

Qualcomm proposed expert Dr. Edward A. Snyder’s testimony under Federal Rule of 

Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993); (ii) to exclude, 

under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, certain portions of Qualcomm proposed expert Professor

Aviv Nevo’s testimony; and, (iii) for partial summary judgment that Defendant Qualcomm 

Incorporated’s licensing commitments to the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions 

(“ATIS”) and the Telecommunications Industry Association (“TIA”) require Qualcomm to make 

licenses to its covered standard-essential patents (“SEPs”) available to rival sellers of modem 

chips.

On August 30, 2018, Defendant Qualcomm filed the following motions: (i) to exclude 

certain opinions of FTC proposed expert Dr. Robert Akl pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26(a)(2)(D)(ii); and (ii) to exclude the opinions and testimony of FTC proposed expert 

Richard Donaldson pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 703 and Daubert v. Merrell 

Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). 

Oppositions to these motions are due September 24, 2018, and replies are due October 4, 

2018. A hearing on the motions is set for October 18, 2018, at 1:30 p.m. (Case Management 

Order, ECF No. 678.)

III. PRE-TRIAL SCHEDULE

On August 28, 2018, the FTC requested that Qualcomm identify any individuals

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 820 Filed 09/05/18 Page 2 of 7
2

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK-NMC

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

(including both employees and former employees) represented at deposition by Qualcomm’s 

counsel who Qualcomm is unable to make available for trial. On August 29, 2018, Qualcomm 

indicated that as a general matter it expects to be able to make current employees available for 

trial, and requested that the FTC narrow its inquiry as to former employees. The FTC identified 

eight former Qualcomm executives on whom to focus in the first instance. 

On August 29, 2018, the Parties met and conferred regarding possible acceleration or 

amendment of some of the deadlines for the Parties to exchange information and materials called 

for in the Court’s Guidelines for Final Pretrial Conferences in Bench Trials (hereinafter, 

“Standing Order”). The Parties agree in principle that modification of deadlines for the exchange 

of certain information may further the Parties’ efforts to engage in an efficient pre-trial and trial 

process. The Parties have exchanged proposals and agreed to continue discussing such proposed 

modifications. 

In order to facilitate the Party’s discussions, and without prejudice to any Party’s right to 

attempt to persuade the Court that good cause exists to adopt a particular approach in this case, 

the Parties agreed to seek guidance from the Court relating to the following issues:

 Witness Testimony. The Parties have discussed exchanging witness lists and

deposition designations earlier than required by the Standing Order. In connection

with these discussions, the Parties respectfully request the Court’s guidance as to

whether, or under what circumstances, the Court would accept into evidence

designated deposition testimony that is submitted solely in writing, as opposed to

requiring the presentation of designated deposition testimony during the parties’

trial time (e.g., by playing recorded testimony). The parties are in the early stages

of trial planning and do not have specific requests to make at this time, but would

appreciate any preliminary guidance that the Court may offer.

 Exhibit Lists. The Parties have discussed exchanging exhibit lists earlier than

required by the Court’s Standing Order. The Parties request the Court’s guidance

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 820 Filed 09/05/18 Page 3 of 7
3

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK-NMC

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

as to whether Paragraph D.1(a) of the Standing Order1 applies to purely 

demonstrative exhibits that are not offered as substantive evidence, such as 

illustrative exhibits to be used during the examination of experts. Subject to the 

Court’s approval, the Parties would prefer to exchange and submit demonstrative 

exhibits at times nearer to their anticipated use at trial and would meet and confer 

regarding such deadlines. 

1 Paragraph D.1(a) reads: “At least 14 days before the final Pretrial Conference, the parties shall 

exchange copies of all exhibits, summaries, charts, and diagrams to be used at trial other than 

solely impeachment or rebuttal.” 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 820 Filed 09/05/18 Page 4 of 7
4

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK-NMC

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

Dated: September 5, 2018

Respectfully submitted,

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

/s/ Jennifer Milici

Jennifer Milici

Wesley G. Carson

J. Alexander Ansaldo

Joseph R. Baker

Elizabeth A. Gillen

Daniel Matheson

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20580

(202) 326-2912; (202) 326-3496 (fax)

jmilici@ftc.gov

Attorneys for Federal Trade Commission

By:

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP

/s/ Gary A. Bornstein

Gary A. Bornstein

Yonatan Even

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP

Worldwide Plaza

825 Eighth Avenue

New York, NY 10019

Tel: (212) 474-1000

Fax: (212) 474-3700

gbornstein@cravath.com

yeven@cravath.com

Robert A. Van Nest

Eugene M. Paige

Justina Sessions

KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP

633 Battery Street

San Francisco, CA 94111-1809

Telephone: (415) 391-5400

Facsimile: (415) 397-7188

rvannest@keker.com

epaige@keker.com

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 820 Filed 09/05/18 Page 5 of 7
5

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK-NMC

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

jsessions@keker.com

Richard S. Taffet

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

101 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10178-0060

Tel: (212) 309-6000

Fax: (212) 309-6001

richard.taffet@morganlewis.com

Willard K. Tom

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

1111 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20004-2541

Tel: (202) 739-3000

Fax: (202) 739 3001

willard.tom@morganlewis.com

Donn P. Pickett

Geoffrey T. Holtz

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

One Market, Spear Street Tower

San Francisco, CA 94105-1126

Tel: (415) 442-1000

Fax: (415) 442-1001

donn.pickett@morganlewis.com

geoffrey.holtz@morganlewis.com

Attorneys for Defendant Qualcomm 

Incorporated

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 820 Filed 09/05/18 Page 6 of 7
6

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK-NMC

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

FILER’S ATTESTATION

I, Gary A. Bornstein, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being used 

to file this Joint Case Management Statement. In compliance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I

hereby attest that the signatories on this document have concurred in this filing.

/s/ Gary A. Bornstein

Gary A. Bornstein

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 820 Filed 09/05/18 Page 7 of 7