CASE NO. 5:17-CV-0220-LHK

PLANTIFF FTC’S OPPOSITION TO

QUALCOMM’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

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

Jennifer Milici, D.C. Bar No. 987096 

J. Alexander Ansaldo, Va. Bar No. 75870

Daniel Matheson, D.C. Bar No. 502490

Wesley G. Carson, D.C. Bar No. 1009899

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20580

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

jmilici@ftc.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v. 

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, a 

Delaware corporation,

Defendant.

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

PLAINTIFF FEDERAL TRADE 

COMMISSION’S OPPOSITION TO 

QUALCOMM’S ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO SEAL

CTRM: Courtroom 8 

JUDGE: Hon. Lucy H. Koh 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1155 Filed 01/06/19 Page 1 of 3
1 CASE NO. 5:17-CV-0220-LHK

PLANTIFF FTC’S OPPOSITION TO

QUALCOMM’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

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

On January 6, 2019, Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) filed administrative motions 

to seal certain portions of exhibits that the FTC may seek to introduce at trial as early as

Monday, January 7. (ECF Nos. 1148, 1150, 1151, 1152, and 1153). 

Although Qualcomm did not seek the FTC’s position on its administrative motions before 

filing, the FTC opposes Qualcomm’s motions. The FTC requested on December 15 that 

Qualcomm provide narrowed confidentiality designations by December 21, so that the FTC 

could plan its examinations in a way to avoid revealing confidential information. Qualcomm did 

not agree to the FTC’s request nor did it provide any narrowed confidentiality designations for 

its documents prior to January 6, 2019. As of the time of this filing, the FTC still has not 

received the specific redactions to the thirty-plus exhibits that Qualcomm seeks to seal. Thus, the 

FTC is unable to evaluate the information that Qualcomm seeks to seal before tomorrow. Based 

on a review of its public filing, however, Qualcomm appears to request redaction of information 

that is well over thirty-six months old, including stale pricing information, licensing offers, and 

information regarding expired agreements, such as CX7022 (1999), CX6469 (2002), CX8281 

(2004), CX5198 (pricing information from mid-2015), and JX0063 (an agreement that by its 

terms expired in October 2012). Such documents do not contain confidential information that 

would meet the compelling reasons standard. Qualcomm’s belated disclosure also prejudices the 

ability of the FTC to prepare for and efficiently conduct examinations using the documents at 

issue. Qualcomm should not be allowed raise confidentiality objections regarding these 

documents during the FTC’s examinations, and any such objections should count against 

Qualcomm’s trial time.

Qualcomm’s motion to seal should be denied. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1155 Filed 01/06/19 Page 2 of 3
2 CASE NO. 17-CV-0220-LHK

PLANTIFF FTC’S OPPOSITION TO

QUALCOMM’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

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: January 6, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

/s/ Jennifer Milici 

Jennifer Milici

Daniel Matheson

J. Alexander Ansaldo

Wesley G. Carson

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

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1155 Filed 01/06/19 Page 3 of 3