Qualcomm Incorporated v. Apple Incorporated
| Qualcomm Incorporated |
| Apple Incorporated |
| 3:2017cv01375 |
| July 6, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| San Diego Office |
| San Diego |
| Mitchell D. Dembin |
| John A. Houston |
| Patent |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1338 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
596
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 568 Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute. As presented in this Joint Motion, Apples motion to compel further responses is GRANTED regarding Request for Production No. 266 (Fifth Set) and DENIED as to Interrogatory No. 47 (Seventh Set). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 2/13/19. (Dembin, Mitchell)
|
|
Filing
579
ORDER: Granting in Part and Denying in Part 421 Apple's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding (1) Patent Exhaustion, (2) Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558 and (3) Pre-Suit Damages; and Granting in Part and Denying in Part 424 Qualcomm's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 2/4/2019. (ag)
|
|
Filing
539
ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 463 467 501 505 515 519 Motions to File Under Seal. Here, the parties have provided compelling reasons for filing under seal the exhibits submitted in support of their briefs. Accordingly, t he Court grants the parties' motion to file the exhibits under seal. However, the parties have not provided compelling reasons for filing the briefs themselves under seal. Although there may be portions of the briefs that deserve to be filed und er seal, the briefs, in their entirety, do not warrant that treatment. Accordingly, the parties' motions to file the briefs under seal is denied. Because there is information in the briefs that may be entitled to sealing, the Court will temporar ily file these documents in redacted form to allow the parties a further opportunity to demonstrate there are "compelling reasons" for portions of these documents to remain under seal. If the parties wish to make that showing, they shall fi le supplemental briefs to that effect on or before 1/25/2019. If the parties fail to file supplemental briefs by that date, the unredacted versions of these documents will be filed and made available to the public. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 1/18/2019. (rmc)
|
|
Filing
512
ORDER on 454 Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute Regarding Documents Produced After the Close of Fact Discovery and Portions of the Rebuttal Expert Report of Stephen Prowse. As provided in this Order, to the extent that Mr. Prowse refers to or relies on the late-produced negotiation letters in his rebuttal expert report, those references and opinions are stricken. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 1/3/19. (Dembin, Mitchell)
|
|
Filing
497
ORDER Denying Qualcomm's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 12/17/2018. (anh)
|
|
Filing
351
ORDER Construing Claims. This matter came before Court for a Claim Construction Hearing on 8/7/2018. Court issues this Order construing the disputed terms of the patents at issue. The disputed terms are interpreted as set forth in this Order Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 9/18/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jah)
|
|
Filing
309
ORDER on 260 Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute regarding Qualcomm's Responses and Objections to Apple's Third Set of Requests for Production (48-56) and Interrogatories (9-11). Apple's motion to compel, as presented in this Joint Motion, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The parties are instructed to meet and confer further and may bring a revised joint motion within 2 weeks of this Order. If a new joint motion is filed, the parties must clearly state their positions regarding each Interrogatory and RFP at issue. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 08/22/2018. (atk)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Qualcomm Incorporated v. Apple Incorporated | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Qualcomm Incorporated | |
| Represented By: | Karen P. Hewitt |
| Represented By: | Randall E. Kay |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Apple Incorporated | |
| Represented By: | Seth M Sproul |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
