1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 WHEREAS, before the Court is Non Schiller Flexner LLP to withdraw as counsel of record for Non-Party Apple Inc. Having duly considered the issues, the Court hereby GRANTS Non-Party r LLP is hereby withdrawn as counsel of record for Non-Party Apple Inc.

Honorable Jacqueline Scott Corley United States District Judge

Identifies Ingram Micro as one of only two distributors in Dr. Flamm’s analysis, which compromises its confidential pass-through rates, shares, and sales information, disclosure of which would negatively impact and harm its business interests.

Identifies Ingram Micro as one of only two distributors in Dr. Flamm’s analysis, which compromises its confidential pass-through rates, shares, and sales information, disclosure of which would negatively impact and harm its business interests.

Identifies Ingram Micro as one of only two distributors in Dr. Flamm’s analysis, which compromises its confidential pass-through rates, shares, and sales information, disclosure of which would negatively impact and harm its business interests.

Contains highly confidential AT&T business information about AT&T’s product architecture and sales data, and pricing and subsidies for devices offered on its network, which, if made public, may result in competitive harm.

Identifies Ingram Micro as one of only two distributors in Dr. Flamm’s analysis, which compromises its confidential pass-through rates, shares, and sales information, disclosure of which would negatively impact and harm its business interests.

Flamm’s Supplemental Expert Report simply takes these existing conclusions and the evidence in the record to illustrate the anticompetitive effect and quantify the damages from Qualcomm’s exclusive deals alone, given the current status of the case.

According to Plaintiffs, “[i]t simply cannot be the case ... that expert analysis filed in class action litigation involving multiple interrelated theories of anticompetitive harm must anticipate every potential outcome on appeal.” (Dkt. No. 988 at 10.)

(Dkt. No. 981-2 at 15 (“Plaintiffs similarly fail to present competent evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the rebates Qualcomm paid Apple for modem chip purchases (however characterized) caused consumers to pay more for their phones”) (emphasis added).)

United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 69 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (“Though what is ‘significant’ may vary depending upon the antitrust provision under which an exclusive deal is challenged, it is clear that in all cases the plaintiff must both define the relevant market and prove the degree of foreclosure.”) Although the Court has considered Plaintiffs’ sur-reply, it does not address this argument.

Thus, the Court GRANTS Qualcomm’s motion for summary judgment on the Cartwright Act claim because Plaintiffs fail to provide evidence of actual antitrust injury via a pass-through from Apple to class members based on the exclusive dealing.

Flamm’s Supplemental Expert Report simply takes these existing conclusions and the evidence in the record to illustrate the anticompetitive effect and quantify the damages from Qualcomm’s exclusive deals alone, given the current status of the case.

According to Plaintiffs, “[i]t simply cannot be the case ... that expert analysis filed in class action litigation involving multiple interrelated theories of anticompetitive harm must anticipate every potential outcome on appeal.” (Dkt. No. 988 at 10.)

(Dkt. No. 981-2 at 15 (“Plaintiffs similarly fail to present competent evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the rebates Qualcomm paid Apple for modem chip purchases (however characterized) caused consumers to pay more for their phones”) (emphasis added).)

United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 69 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (“Though what is ‘significant’ may vary depending upon the antitrust provision under which an exclusive deal is challenged, it is clear that in all cases the plaintiff must both define the relevant market and prove the degree of foreclosure.”) Although the Court has considered Plaintiffs’ sur-reply, it does not address this argument.

Thus, the Court GRANTS Qualcomm’s motion for summary judgment on the Cartwright Act claim because Plaintiffs fail to provide evidence of actual antitrust injury via a pass-through from Apple to class members based on the exclusive dealing.

This Document Relates To:

Case No. 3:17-md-2773-JSC 11413774v1/015494 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the deadline to submit Statements in Support of Plaintiffs’ and Qualcomm’s Administrative Motions to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed is extended to April 28, 2023.

April 14, 2023 Dated: ___________________ ____________ _________ ____________________ _________________ ____________ By: ___________________________________ HoHoHoHoHon.

JaJaJaJacqueline Scott Corley Hon.

Jacqueline Scott Corley United States District Court JudgeU i d S DiDD i C J d

: Courtroom 8, 19th Floor Judge: Hon.

Jacqueline Scott Corley

2100900 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Civ.

6-1(a), 6-2, and 7-12, Plaintiffs and Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their respective counsel, stipulate and agree as follows: WHEREAS, the Court held a Case Management Conference in this matter on February 23, 2023, at which it directed Qualcomm to file a motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 923); WHEREAS, the Court ordered that all summary judgment briefing should be completed by June 22, 2023, and set an in-person hearing on the motion for July 20, 2023 at 10:00 a.m.; WHEREAS, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding a briefing schedule for Qualcomm’s motion for summary judgment; WHEREAS, the parties have conferred and agreed to a briefing schedule for Qualcomm’s motion for summary judgment; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE that, subject to the Court’s approval, Qualcomm’s motion for summary judgment shall be filed on or before April 7, 2023; Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion shall be filed on or before May 25, 2023; Qualcomm’s reply on the motion shall be filed on or before June 22, 2023; and the hearing will be set for July 20, 2023 at 10:00 a.m.

2100900 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Gary A. Bornstein (pro hac vice) Yonatan Even (pro hac vice) CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP Worldwide Plaza 825 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10019-7475 Tel.