illiillll emanuel trial lawyers | wasaiaulou. Ill:
`773 Sixth Street NW, nth Floor, Washington, District of Columbia zoom-3706 I TEL (102.) 533'8000 I FAX {202}f§'}3'3100
`
`WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL No.
`
`(202) 538-8104
`
`WRIT ER'S INTERNET ADDRESS
`
`alexlasher®quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`
`
`
`July 7, 2017
`
`VIA HAND DELIVERY
`
`
`
`The Honorable Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
`US. International Trade Commission
`
`500 E Street, SW -» Room 112
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`35936
`
`Dfiioeollhe
`.Semetary
`_
`'lnt'l '[tade Commission
`
`'
`
`
`
`Re:
`
`Certain Mobile Electronic Devices And Radio Frequency And Processing Components
`
`Thereof
`
`Dear Secretary Barton:
`
`Enclosed for filing, please find documents in support of a request by Qualcomm
`Incorporated (“Complainant”) that the_U.S. International Trade Commission institute an
`investigation pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, concerning certain
`mobile electronic devices and radio frequency and processing components thereof.
`Complainant’s submission includes the following documents:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`One (1) original and eight (8) paper copies of Complainant’s Verified Complaint,
`pursuant to Commission Rule 210.8(a)(1)(i).
`
`One (1) electronic copy of the public exhibits to the Verified complaint pursuant to
`Commission Rules 210.8(a)(1)(i) and 210.12(a)(9), including:
`
`a.
`
`one (1) electronic certified copy of each of United States Patent Nos.
`8,633,936 (“the ’936 patent”), 8,698,558 (“the ’558 patent”), 8,487,658
`(“the ’658 patent”), 8,838,949 (“the ’949 patent”), 9,535,490 (“the ’490
`patent”), 9,608,675 (“the ’675 patent”), copies of which are respectively
`included as Exhibits 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 to the Verified Complaint pursuant
`to Commission Rule 210.12(a)(9)(i); and
`
`Elllllfl emanuet llfllllllafl 8: sulllvan, III]
`LOS ANGELES | NEW YORK I SAN FRANCISCO | SILICON VALLEY (Ii-IICAUO i HOUSTON i LONT'JON | ‘l‘t‘BKYO | MANi‘Ji-lElM E PdOfiCIDWI lI.-'\I\'ll\1.ilt('}| PARle
`MLI'NILIII | SYDNEY ' I'IONC} KONG f BRUSSELS
`
`(cid:50)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:81)(cid:15)(cid:18)
`QC 2003, p.1
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`b.
`
`one (1) electronic copy of the certified assignment records for each of the
`’936 patent, ’558 patent, ’658 patent, ’949 patent, ’490 patent, and ’675
`patent, copies of which are respectively included as Exhibits 2, 4, 6, 8, 10,
`and 12 to the Verified Complaint, pursuant to Commission Rule
`210.12(a)(9)(ii).
`
`One ( 1) electronic copy of the confidential exhibits to the Verified Complaint,
`pursuant to Commission Rules 201.6(0) and 210.8(a)(l)(ii).
`
`One (1) additional copy of the Verified Complaint and accompanying electronic
`copies of the public exhibits, for service upon the Proposed Respondent, pursuant to
`Commission Rules 201.6(c) and 210.3(a)(1)(iii); and one (1) additional copy of
`electronic copies of the confidential exhibits to the Verified Complaint for service
`upon the Proposed Respondent’s counsel after it has subscribed to the protective
`order.
`
`Four (4) electronic copies each of the certified prosecution history of the ’936
`patent, ’558 patent, ’658 patent, ’949 patent, ’490 patent, and ’675 patent, which are
`respectively identified as Appendices A, C, E, G, I, and K to the Verified
`Complaint, pursuant to Commissiou Rule 210.12(c)(1).
`
`Four (4) electronic copies each of each patent and applicable pages of each
`technical reference mentioned in the prosecution history of the ’936 patent, ’558
`' patent, ’658 patent, ”949 patent, ’490 patent, and ’675 patent, which are respectively
`identified as Appendices B, D, F, H, J, and L to the Verified Complaint, pursuant to
`Commission Rule 210.12(c)(2).
`
`One physical sample of a representative imported article that is the subject of the
`complaint (Physical Exhibit P1 to the Verified Complaint).
`
`A letter and certification requesting confidential treatment for the information
`contained in confidential exhibits 14C and 16C-27C to the Verified Complaint,
`pursuant to Commission Rules 201 .6(b) and 210.5(d).
`
`A Statement on the Public Interest regarding the remedial orders sought by
`Complainants in the Verified Complaint, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.803).
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Please contact me with any questions regarding this filing.
`
`(cid:50)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:81)(cid:15)(cid:19)
`QC 2003, p.2
`
`

`

`Page 3
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`4%.
`
`S. Alex Lasher
`
`Counselfor Complainant Qualcomm
`Incorporated
`
`Dated: July 7, 2017
`
`Enclosures
`
`(cid:50)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:81)(cid:15)(cid:20)
`QC 2003, p.3
`
`

`

`auinn emanuel trial lawyers | washtaulan. as
`73;! Sixth Street NW, nth Floor, Washington, District of Columbia zoom-3706 i TEL (202) 538—3000 I FAX (202) 538-3100
`
`WRITER'S DIRECT DML N0.
`
`(202) 538-8104
`
`WRITER'S INTERNET ADDRESS
`
`alexlasher@quinnemanuel.com
`
`REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT
`
`July 7,201?
`
`VIA HAND DELIVERY
`
`The Honorable Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
`US. International Trade Commission
`
`500 E Street, SW _ Room 112
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`Re:
`
`Certain Mobile Electronic Devices Ami Radio Frequency And Processing Components
`
`Thereof
`
`Dear Secretary Barton:
`
`Pursuant to Conunission Rule 201.6, Complainant Qualcomm Incorporated respectfully
`requests confidential treatment of certain confidential business information contained in
`confidential exhibits 14C and 16C-2?C to the Verified Complaint.
`
`The information in the exhibits for which Complainant seeks confidential treatment
`consists of proprietary commercial information, including confidential and proprietary licensing
`information, technical information related to domestic articles protected by Complainant's
`asserted patents, technical information related to accused products articles obtained from
`nonpublic teardowns, and financial data regarding Complainant’s domestic investments in plant
`and equipment and labor and capital related to domestic articles protected by Complainant’s
`asserted patents.
`
`The proprietary information described herein qualifies as confidential business
`information under Commission Rule 201.6 because substantially—identical information is not
`available to the public, because the disclosure of this information would cause substantial
`competitive harm to Complainant, and because the disclosure of this information would likely
`impede the Commission’s efforts and ability to obtain similar information in the future.
`
`lllllllll nmanuei lll'llllllal‘l 8- Slllllliall. "II
`1.05 ANGELES NEW’ Yi'lllK | SAN FRANCISCO I SlLICON VALLFT I (ll-i ICAGCP LONDON i TOKYO MANNl-lEiM I MOSCOW l I-EAMNERC | PR R15
`
`(cid:50)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:81)(cid:15)(cid:21)
`QC 2003, p.4
`
`

`

`Thank you for your attention. Please contact me with any questions regarding this
`request for confidential treatment.
`
`Dated: July 7, 2017
`
`Page 2
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`@ar’ém
`
`S. Alex Lasher
`
`Counselfor Complainant Qualcomm
`Incorporated
`
`Enclosure (Certification)
`
`(cid:50)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:81)(cid:15)(cid:22)
`QC 2003, p.5
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE ELECTRONIC
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`
`
`DEVICES AND RADIO FREQUENCY
`AND PROCESSING COMPONENTS
`THEREOF
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-
`
`CERTIFICATION
`
`I, S. Alex Lasher, counsel for Complainant Qualcomm Incorporated, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am duly authorized by Complainant to execute this certification.
`
`2.
`
`1 have reviewed confidential exhibits 14C and 16C-27C to Complainant’s Verified
`Complaint, for which Complainant seeks confidential treatment.
`
`3. To the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, founded after a reasonable
`inquiry, substantially-identical information to that contained in the exhibits is not
`available to the public.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`Executed this 7th day of July, 2017 in Washington, DC.
`
`H
`
`S. Alex Lasher
`
`(cid:50)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:81)(cid:15)(cid:23)
`QC 2003, p.6
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`WASHINGTON, DC.
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE ELECTRONIC
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`
`
`DEVICES AND RADIO FREQUENCY
`AND PROCESSING COMPONENTS
`
`THEREOF
`
`COMPLAINANT’S INITIAL STATEMENT ON THE PUBLIC INTEREST
`
`(cid:50)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:81)(cid:15)(cid:24)
`QC 2003, p.7
`
`

`

`Pursuant
`
`to Commission Rule
`
`210.8(b), Complainant Qualcomm Incorporated
`
`(“Qualcomm”) respectfully submits this Statement on the Public Interest regarding the remedial
`
`orders that Qualcomm seeks against Proposed Respondent Apple Inc. (“Apple”). Qualcomm seeks a
`
`permanent limited exclusion order excluding from entry into the United States certain mobile
`
`electronic devices that do not incorporate a Qualcomm brand baseband processor modem and that
`
`infringe or are manufactured by processes that infringe one or more of claims 1, 10-27, 29, 38, 49,
`
`55-60, and 67-68 of US. Patent No. 8,633,936 (“the ‘936 patent”), and/’or claims 1, 6—1 1, and 15-20
`
`of US. Patent No. 8,698,558 (“the ’558 patent”), andfor claims 9, 10, 12, 14, and 20-22 of US.
`
`Patent No. 8,487,658 (“the ’658 patent”), andfor claims 1~8, 10-14, 16, 20, and 22 of US. Patent
`
`No. 8,838,949 (“the ”949 patent”), andi’or claims 1—6, 8, 10, 16—17, and 31 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,535,490 (“the ’490 patent”), andz’or claims 1-3 and 7-14 of US. Patent No. 9,608,675 (“the ’675
`
`patent”),' either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Qualcomm also seeks permanent
`
`cease and desist orders prohibiting Apple, its subsidiaries, related companies, and agents from
`
`conducting any of the following activities in the United States: importing, admitting or withdrawing
`
`from a foreign trade zone, marketing, advertising, demonstrating, testing, warehousing inventory of,
`
`distributing, offering for sale, selling, licensing, programming, packaging, repackaging, bundling,
`
`updating, soliciting US. agents or distributors for, or aiding and abetting other entities in the
`
`importation, sale for importation, sale after importation, transfer, or distribution of its infringing
`
`mobile electronic devices, or of mobile devices manufactured using processes that infringe. The
`
`accused mobile electronic devices are the types of products commonly before the Commission and
`
`have been the subject of past remedial orders.
`
`1 None of the asserted patents are Standards Essential Patents (“SEPs”) and none were declared
`essential to a standards development body nor are any essential to a promulgated standard.
`
`(cid:50)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:81)(cid:15)(cid:25)
`QC 2003, p.8
`
`

`

`The Commission has made clear that protecting domestic intellectual property rights against
`
`infringing imports is ofparamount importance, and will only be denied in exceptional circumstances
`
`where the harm to the public interest is severe. There is no such harm here. Indeed, Qualcomm’s
`
`requested remedial orders serve—rather than harm—the public interest. Qualcomm is a global
`
`semiconductor and telecommunications company, founded and based in the United States, that has
`
`invested billions ofdollars in the United States researching and developing innovations which have
`
`enabled wireless telecommunications and countless mobile technologies. Qualcomm relies on its
`
`intellectual property to support and protect this valuable work. Furthermore, Qualcomm does not
`
`seek exclusion of Apple mobile electronic devices that employ a Qualcomm brand baseband
`
`processor modem. Apple currently imports and sells mobile electronic devices that use a Qualcomm
`
`brand baseband processor modem, which are sufficient (technically and commercially) to fill any
`
`void resulting from the exclusion of Apple mobile electronic devices including non—Qualcomm
`
`brand baseband processor modems. This investigation does not concern Apple mobile electronic
`
`devices employing Qualcomm brand baseband processor modems, which can easily meet the public
`
`demand for such devices.
`
`Infringement by use of non-Qualcomm brand baseband processor
`
`modems is purely a matter of choice on the part of Apple.
`
`Qualcomm’s requested remedial orders raise no public interest concerns because: (1) the
`
`accused products do not serve any essential public health or welfare objective; (2) any demand for
`
`the products that would be subject to the requested remedial orders could be filled by Apple mobile
`
`electronic devices that include Qualcomm brand baseband processor modems; and (3) U.S.
`
`consumers would not face any potential shortage of like or directly competitive products.
`
`Accordingly, this investigation does not present any unique public interest concerns that would
`
`require the Commission to deviate from its practice of issuing remedial orders covering infringing
`
`mobile electronic devices. See, e. g, See, e.g, Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices and
`
`2
`
`(cid:50)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:81)(cid:15)(cid:26)
`QC 2003, p.9
`
`

`

`Components Thereof, lnv. No. 337-TA-796, Comm’n Op. (Sept. 6, 2013); Certain Eiectronic
`
`Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices,
`
`and Tablet Computers, Inv. No. 337-TA-794, Conun’n Op. (July 5, 2013); Certain Personai Data
`
`and Mobile Communications Devices and Related Sofmare, Inv. N0. 337-TA-710, Comm’n Op.
`
`(Dec. 29, 2011).
`
`I.
`
`USE OF THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES
`
`The accused products are Apple’ 5 imported mobile electronic devices that do not incorporate
`
`a Qualcomm brand baseband processor modem, including mobile phones and tablet computers that
`
`infringe one or more claims of the Asserted Patents. These products are manufactured abroad and
`
`sold to consumers throughout the United States.
`
`II.
`
`'THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS DO NOT PRESENT ANY PUBLIC HEALTH,
`
`SAFETY, OR WELFARE CONCERNS RELATING TO THE REQUESTED
`REMEDIAL ORDERS
`
`There are no public health, safety, or welfare considerations that weigh against remedial
`
`relief. The accused products are common consumer goods, which the Commission has consistently
`
`found do not present public health, safety or welfare concerns. See, e.g., Electronic Digital Media
`
`Devices, Comm’n Op. at 114—115; Eiecironic Devices, Comm’n Op. at 109; Personal Data and
`
`Mobile Communications Devices, Comm’n Op. at 76. And Apple has echoed this sentiment in
`
`previous investigations. See Eiectronic Digital Media Devices, Apple’s Submission on Remedy,
`
`Bond, and Public Interest at 19 (June 11, 2013) (mobile electronic devices “do not have any
`
`Specialized public health, safety, or welfare applications, nor are they the type ofproducts that affect
`
`public health and welfare”); Personal Data and Mobiie Communications Devices, 'Apple’s Public
`
`Interest Statement at 2 (Aug. 25, 2011) (mobile electronic devices “do not implicate any particular
`
`public health, safety, or welfare concerns”).
`
`(cid:50)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:81)(cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:17)
`QC 2003, p.10
`
`

`

`III.
`
`NUMEROUS LIKE OR DIRECTLY COMPETITIVE ARTICLES ARE AVAILABLE
`TO SATISFY DEMAND FOR THE EXCLUDED PRODUCTS
`
`The U.S. mobile electronics market is highly competitive with a diverse field of participants
`
`offering products that directly compete with Apple’s accused products. Third parties comprise more
`
`than 50 percent of the U.S. smartphone market and could easily ramp up production to replace any
`
`excluded Apple products. Furthermore, Apple itself sells mobile electronic devices that use a
`
`Qualcomm brand baseband processor modem, which could replace any accused products subject to
`
`an exclusion order.
`
`Further, remedial orders would not have any negative impact on competitive production in
`
`the United States because the accused products and their replacements are manufactured overseas.
`
`The Commission has explained that the consideration of the production of like or directly competitive
`
`articles does not weigh against issuance of a remedy when substitute products are available and the
`
`accused products are manufactured overseas. See Certain Digital Televisions & Certain Prods.
`
`Containing Same & Methods of Using Same, Inv. No. 337—TA-6l7, Comm‘n Op. at 15 (Apr. 23,
`
`2009).
`
`IV.
`
`REMEDIAL ORDERS WOULD NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT U.S. CONSUMERS
`
`As previously discussed, if the Apple accused products are excluded, U.S. consumers will
`
`continue to have numerous available options for mobile electronic devices, including products sold
`
`by Apple that include Qualcomm brand baseband processor modems. Thus, there will be no
`
`reduction in consumer choice.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`This investigation does not present any special public interest issues.
`
`Issuance of the
`
`requested remedial relief against Apple’s accused products will support the strong public interest in
`
`protecting intellectual property rights held by highly innovative companies like Qualcomm. That
`
`(cid:50)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:81)(cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:18)
`QC 2003, p.1 1
`
`

`

`interest is not outweighed by any hypothetical adverse impact to the US. public, especially because
`
`of the significant number of manufacturers that can readily satisfy any new demand created by
`
`issuance of the requested remedial orders. Accordingly, the Commission should institute this
`
`investigation without delegating public interest fact-finding to the Administrative Law Judge.
`
`Dated: July 7, 201'?
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`H
`
`. Alex asher
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`777 6th Street NW, 11th Floor
`Washington, DC 20001
`Tel.: (202) 538-8000
`Fax: (202) 538-8100
`
`David A. Nelson
`
`Stephen Swedlow
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHAR’I‘ & SULLIVAN, LLP
`500 West Madison St., Suite 2450
`Chicago, Illinois 60661
`Telephone:
`(312) 705-2400
`Facsimile: (312) 705-7401
`
`Alexander Rudis
`
`Richard W. Erwine
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`
`New York, NY 10010
`Tel.: (212) 849-7000
`Fax: (212) 849-7100
`
`Sean S. Pak
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Tel.: (415) 83’5—6600
`Fax: (415) 875—6700
`
`Tom M. Schaumberg
`Deanna Tamer Okun
`
`David H. Hollander, Jr.
`
`5
`
`(cid:50)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:81)(cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:19)
`QC 2003, p.12
`
`

`

`Daniel F. Smith
`
`ADDUCI, MASTRIANI & SCHAUMBERG, L.L.P.
`1133 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., 12th Floor
`
`Washington, DC 20036
`Tel.: (202) 467-6300
`Fax: (202) 466-2006
`
`Evan R. Chesler
`Keith R. Hummel
`
`Richard J. Stark
`
`Gary A. Bomstein
`J. Wesley Earnhardt
`Yonatan Even
`
`Vanessa A. Lavely
`CRAVATH, SWAlNE & MOORE LLP
`Worldwide Plaza, 825 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10019
`Tel.: (212) 474-1000
`Fax: (212) 474-3700
`
`Counselfor Complainant Qualcomm Incorporated
`
`(cid:50)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:81)(cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:20)
`QC 2003, p.13
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE ELECTRONIC
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`
`
`DEVICES AND RADIO FREQUENCY
`AND PROCESSING COMPONENTS
`THEREOF
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-
`
`COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 337 OF THE
`
`TARIFF ACT OF 1930, AS AMENDED
`
`Complainant
`
`Proposed Respondent
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`5775 Morehouse Drive
`San Diego, CA 92121
`Tel. (858) SS'M 121
`
`Apple Inc.
`1 Infinite Loop
`Cupertino, CA 95014
`Tel. (408) 996-1010
`
`Counselfor Campiainan! Qualcomm
`Incorporated
`
`S. Alex Lasher
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN,
`LLP
`
`777 6th Street NW, 11th Floor
`Washington, DC 20001
`Tel.: (202) 538-8000
`Fax: (202) 538-8100
`
`David A. Nelson
`
`Stephen Swedlow
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN,
`LLP
`
`500 West Madison St, Suite 2450
`Chicago, Illinois 60661
`Tel:
`(312) 705-2400
`Fax: (312) "105-7401
`
`(cid:50)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:81)(cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:21)
`QC 2003, p.14
`
`

`

`Richard W. Erwine
`
`Alexander Rudis
`
`QUtNN EMANUEL URQUHAR‘T‘ & SULLIVAN,
`LLP
`
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`
`New York, NY 10010
`Tel.: (212) 849-2000
`Fax: (212) 849-2100
`
`Sean S. Pak
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART 85 SULLWAN,
`LLP
`
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Tel.: (415) 875-6600
`Fax: (415) 875-6700
`
`Tom M. Schaumberg
`Deanna Tanner Okun
`
`David H. Hollander, Jr.
`Daniel F. Smith
`
`ADDUCI, MASTRIANI & SCHAUMBERG,
`L.L.P.
`
`1133 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., 12th Floor
`
`Washington, DC 20036
`Tel.: (202) 467-6300
`Fax: (202) 466-2006
`
`Evan R. Chesler
`
`Keith R. Hummel
`
`Richard J. Stark
`
`Gary A. Bernstein
`J. Wesley Earnhardt
`Yonatan Even
`
`-
`
`Vanessa A. Lavely
`CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
`Worldwide Plaza, 825 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10019
`Tel.: (212) 474-1000
`Fax: (212) 474-3700
`
`(cid:50)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:81)(cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:22)
`QC 2003, p.15
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`....4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`
`4
`
`Apple Inc.
`
`III.
`
`THE TECHNOLOGIES AND PRODUCTS AT ISSUE
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Products AtIssue
`
`Background OfTheTechnology
`
`IV.
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS AND NON-TECHNICAL DESCRIPTIONS OF
`THE INVENTIONS..........................
`.
`.
`
`...13
`
`A.
`
`The ’936Patent
`
`13
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Identification and Ownership of the ’936 Patent
`
`.13
`
`Foreign Counterparts to the ’936 Patent..................... .
`
`...13
`
`Non-Technical Description ofthe “936Patent
`
`14
`
`The ’558 Patent .
`
`.
`
`Identification and Ownership ofthe ’558 Patent
`
`Foreign Counterparts to the ”558Patent
`
`15
`
`Non-Technical Description of the ’558 Patent...............
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`...15
`
`...14
`
`...14
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The ’658 Patent ...........................................................................
`
`......................... 15
`
`Identification and Ownership of the ’658 Patent.............................
`
`.
`
`...15
`
`Foreign Counterparts to the ’658Patent
`
`16
`
`Non-Technical Description ofthe ’658 Patent...............
`
`.
`
`..
`
`The’949 Patent................
`
`.
`
`1.
`
`Identification and Ownership ofthe ’94?! Patent.....................
`
`.
`
`...16
`
`.....1'?
`
`......17
`
`(cid:50)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:81)(cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:23)
`QC 2003, p.16
`
`

`

`2.
`
`3.
`
`Foreign Counterparts to the 3949 Patent]?
`
`Non-Technical Description of the ’949 Patent ......................................... 18
`
`E.
`
`The ’490 Patent .................................................................................................... 18
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Identification and Ownership of the ’490 Patent...................................... 18
`
`Foreign Counterparts to the ’490 Patent 19
`
`Non-Technical Description ofthe ’490Patent 19
`
`F.
`
`The ’65 Patent .................................................................................................... 19
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Identification and Ownership of the ’675 Patent...................................... l9
`
`Foreign Counterparts to the “675 Patent................................................... 20
`
`Non—Technical Description ofthe ’675 Patent20
`
`G.
`
`Licensees to the AssertedPatentle
`
`V.
`
`APPLE’S INFRINGEMENT OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS21
`
`income
`
`F.
`
`Infringement ofthe ’936Patent21
`
`Infringement ofthe ’558Patent23
`
`Infringement ofthe ’658Patent24
`
`Infringement ofthe ’949Patent25
`
`Infringement of the ’49!) Patent............................................................................ 26
`
`Infringement of the '675 Patent............................................................................ 28
`
`VI.
`
`SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF UNFAIR IMPORTATION AND SALE ........................... 28
`
`VII.
`
`HARMONIZED TARIFF SCHEDULE NUMBERS29
`
`VIII. RELATED LITIGATION29
`
`IX.
`
`THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY RELATING TO THE ASSERTED PATENTS............29
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`TechnicalProng29
`
`Economic Prong31
`
`ii
`
`(cid:50)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:81)(cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:24)
`QC 2003, p.17
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`l.
`as:
`
`
`mm .
`as:
`-
`
`
`
`
`
`ertlfied do. ' “arm's; Pate-ht
`0’. 8,633,936
`p—l
`Certified Assi _nment Records for U S Patent No 8,633,936
`
`
`
`...~
`2.
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`so
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Certlfied Co- of US. Patent No 8,698 558
`C
`.
`
`a}
`
`10
`
`12
`13
`
`C
`
`Certified Assignment Records for U S Patent No 9 608 675
`
`14c
`
`C
`
`160
`
`17C
`
`19C
`
`200
`
`2
`
`O
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MMMNI—-U3—-on
`
`4C
`
`25C
`26C
`
`ZTC
`23
`
`29
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Confidential Re resentative Domestlc Industr Claim Charts for the ’658 Patent
`
`Confidential Representative Domestic Industr Claim Charts for the ”949 Patent
`Confidential Re resentative Domestic Industr Claim Charts for the ’490 Patent
`
`Confidential Re uresentative Domestic Industr Claim Charts for the ”675 Patent
`
`
`
`
`Certificate of Correction for the ’58 Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.\‘,‘;”"- «a, :5
`
`A - nle iPhone 7
`
`PHYSICAL EXHIBIT LIST
`
`iii
`
`(cid:50)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:81)(cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:25)
`QC 2003, p.18
`
`

`

`APPENDIX LIST
`
` C
`
`Certified Prosecution Histo
`ofU.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`Patents and Applicable Pages of Technical References Mentioned in the
`Prosecution Histo
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`
`
`
`F
`
`Certified Prosecution Histo
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,487,658
`Patents and Applicable Pages of Technical References Mentioned in the
`Prosecution Histo
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,487,658
`
`H
`
`:_.
`
`L
`
`Certified Prosecution Histo of U.S. Patent No. 8,838,949
`Patents and Applicable Pages of Technical References Mentioned in the
`Prosecution Histo
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,83 8,949
`
`Certified Prosecution Histo of U.S. Patent No. 9,535,490
`
`Patents and Applicable Pages of Technical References Mentioned in the
`Prosecution Histo
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,535,490
`
`Certified Prosecution Histo of U.S. Patent No. 9,608,675
`Patents and Applicable Pages of Technical References Mentioned in the
`Prosecution Histo
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,608,675
`
`iv
`
`(cid:50)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:81)(cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:26)
`QC 2003, p.19
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Complainant Qualcomm Incorporated
`
`(“Qualcomm”
`
`or
`
`“Complainant”)
`
`respectfully files this complaint under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19
`
`U.S.C. § 1337, based on Proposed Respondent Apple Inc’s (“Apple” or “Respondent”)
`
`unlawful importation into the United States, sale for importation into the United States, andfor
`
`sale within the United States after importation of certain mobile electronic devices, including
`
`mobile phones and tablet computers.
`
`2.
`
`This complaint is directed to Apple’s imported mobile electronic devices that do
`
`not incorporate a Qualcomm brand baseband processor modern,l including mobile phones and
`
`tablet computers, that infringe, or are manufactured by processes that infringe, one or more of
`
`claims 1, 10-27, 29, 38, 49, 55-60, and 67—68 of US. Patent No. 8,633,936 (“the ’936 patent”),
`
`andfor claims 1 and 6—20 of US. Patent No. 8,698,558 (“the ’558 patent”), andfor claims 9, 10,
`
`12, 14, and 20-22 of US. Patent No. 8,487,658 (“the ’658 patent”), andz’or claims 1~8, 10-14,
`
`16, 20, and 22 of US Patent No. 8,838,949 (“the ’949 patent”), andx‘or claims 1~6, 8, 10, 16—
`
`17, and 31 of US. Patent No. 9,535,490 (“the ’490 patent”), andfor claims 1-3 and 7-14 of US.
`
`Patent No. 9,608,675 (“the ’675 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”), either literally or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents. Such products include at least the Apple iPhone 7 that does
`
`not incorporate a Qualcomm brand baseband processor modem (“Accused Devices”).2 The
`
`following table provides a summary of the asserted claims of the Asserted Patents (independent
`
`claims in bold):
`
`' Qualcomm brand baseband processor modems are designed, sold, and distributed by
`Qualcomm and its affiliates.
`
`The identification of a specific model or type of mobile electronic device is not
`7'
`intended to limit the scope of the investigation. Discovery may reveal that additional Apple
`products infringe the asserted patent claims andi'or that additional claims are infringed.
`
`(cid:50)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:81)(cid:15)(cid:19)(cid:17)
`QC 2003, p.20
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`seated '
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8,698,558
`
`8,487,658
`
`8,838,949
`
`9,535,490
`
`9,608,675
`
`l, 10, 11-18, 19, 20-27, 29, 38, 49, 55, 56-60, 67, 68
`
`
`
`
`1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, l3, 14, 15, 16-20
`
`9, 10, 12, 14, 20, 21, 22
`
`1, 2-8, 10, 11-14, 16, 20, 22
`
`1, 2-6, 8, 10, 16, 17, 31
`
`—
`
`1, 2—3, '1—14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Qualcomm, based in San Diego, California,
`
`is a global semiconductor and
`
`telecommunications company that designs and markets wireless telecommunications products
`
`and services.
`
`It is the largest domestic provider of telecommunications chipsets and software.
`
`Since its founding in 1985, Qualcomm has invested billions of dollars in the United States
`
`researching and developing innovations that have enabled wireless telecommunications and
`
`countless mobile technologies. These market—changing innovations have allowed Qualcomm to
`
`grow into one of the largest technology companies in the United States, where it now employs
`
`over 18,000 people, more than two-thirds of whom are engineers.
`
`4.
`
`Qualcomm helped pioneer advances at
`
`the heart of cellular connectivity,
`
`enabling not only Apple’s mobile electronic devices, but also the entire smartphone revolution.
`
`Qualcomm’s patented technologies allow Apple’s mobile electronic devices to send and receive
`
`vast amounts of data at
`
`lightning speed. Qualcomm also invented critical
`
`technologies
`
`improving functions throughout every modern cellular device.
`
`Indeed, Qualcomm’s inventions
`
`make mobile electronic devices desirable to consumers in their daily lives.
`
`5.
`
`Apple is a dominant seller in both the global and domestic markets for mobile
`
`electronic devices. While Apple’s mobile electronic devices are ubiquitous today, Apple had
`
`(cid:50)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:81)(cid:15)(cid:19)(cid:18)
`QC 2003, p.21
`
`

`

`nothing to do with creating the technology that forms the backbone of the cellular industry.
`
`Instead, Apple rose to dominance relying heavily on Qualcomm’s technology that enables
`
`numerous important features on the iPhone, including providing better battery life and improved
`
`graphics. Further, the iPhone’s value to customers is driven by its Qualcomm-enabled ability to
`
`connect with and transfer data over networks at rapid Speeds. Apple CEO Tim Cook has
`
`continued on multiple occasions the heavy dependence of the iPhone on high-speed cellular
`
`connectivity for its success.
`
`(Ex. 28, ApriUOctober 2016 statements (“There are enormous
`
`investments going on in 4G, and we couldn't be more excited about that because it really takes a
`
`great network working-with iPhones to produce that great experience for people.”).)
`
`6.
`
`Apple’s unlicensed and unauthorized use of Qualcomm’s technology—including
`
`the technology disclosed in the Assorted Patents—to manufacture,
`
`import and sell mobile
`
`electronic devices in the United States constitutes an unfair act within the meaning of Section
`
`337.
`
`7.
`
`0n information and belief, the Accused Devices are manufactured andr'or sold
`
`for importation into the United States,
`
`imported into the United States, and/or sold after
`
`importation into the United States by or on behalf of Apple.
`
`8.
`
`A domestic industry as required by 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2) and (3) exists in the
`
`United States relating to articles protected by Qualcomm’s Asserted Patents. Qualcomm’s
`
`domestic industry includes significant
`
`investments
`
`in plant and equipment,
`
`significant
`
`employment of labor and capital, and substantial
`
`investments in the exploitation of the
`
`inventions claimed in Qualcomm’s Asserted Patents, including through engineering, research,
`
`and development.
`
`(cid:50)(cid:36)(cid:1)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:17)(cid:20)(cid:13)(cid:1)(cid:81)(cid:15)(cid:19)(cid:19)
`QC 2003, p.22
`
`

`

`9.
`
`Qualcomm seeks as relief a permanent limited exclusion order under 19 U.S.C. §
`
`1337(d) barring from entry into the United States infringing mobile electronic devices, or
`
`mobile electronic devices that are manufactured using processes that infringe, that are imported
`
`into the United States, sold for importation into the United States, andfor sold in the United
`
`States after importation by or on behalf of Apple.
`
`10.
`
`Qualcomm further seeks a permanent cease and desist order under 19 U.S.C. §
`
`1337(f) prohibiting Apple from importing, admitting or withdrawing from a foreign trade zone,
`
`marketing, advertising, demonstrating, testing, warehousing inventory of, distributing, offering
`
`for sale, selling, licensing, programming, packaging, repackaging, bundling, updating, soliciting
`
`US. agents or distributors for, or aiding and abetting other