Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 539 FSUPP2D 1214 - Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp.

Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

1
cited by 1 later decisions
December 2008
most recently cited

1 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Relies on Baxter International, Inc. v. McGaw, Inc. · Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Technologies AG · Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co. v. Samsung Electronics Co. · Refac International, Ltd. v. Lotus Development Corp. · Agfa Corporation v. Creo Products Inc.

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “In light of all of the ... evidence finally revealed, the eventual collapse of Qual-comm’s concealment efforts exposes the carefully orchestrated plan and the deadly determination of Qualcomm to achieve its goal of holding hostage the entire industry desiring to practice the H.264 standard by insulating its IPR from the JVT so that the JVT would lose the opportunity to mitigate, if not to avoid, Qualcomm’s IPR in the development of the H.264 standard. Broadcom, ignorant of the existence of the '104 and '767 patents, designed and is in the process of manufacturing numerous H.264compliant products.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Qualcomm intentionally organized a plan of action to shield the '104 and '767 patents from consideration by the JVT with the anticipation that (1) the resulting H.264 standard would infringe those patents and (2) Qualcomm would then have an opportunity to be an indispensable licensor to anyone in the world seeking to produce an H.264-compliant product.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.