Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corporation


Order on Remedy for Finding of Waiver
United States Senior District Court Judget Hon. Rudi Brewster
August 6, 2007

Order to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed
United States Magistrate Judge Barbara Major
August 13, 2007

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions and Sanctioning Qualcomm, Incorporated and Individual Lawyers
United States Magistrate Judge Barbara Major
January 7, 2008

  • Over the course of discovery, Broadcom sought information concerning Qualcomm’s participation in and communications with the Joint Video Team (JVT) through a variety of discovery devices.
  • For the current “good faith” discovery system to function in the electronic age, attorneys and clients must work together to ensure that both understand how and where electronic documents, records and emails are maintained and to determine how best to locate, review, and produce responsive documents.
  • Proudcing 1.2 millions pages of marginaly relevant documents while hiding 46,000 critically important ones does not constitute good faith and does not satisfy either the client’s or attorney’s discovery obligations.
  • The Court find it likely that … one or more of the retained lawyers chose not to look in the correct locations for the correct document, to accept the unsubstantiated assurances of an important client that its search was sufficient, to ignore the warning signs that the document search and production were inadequate, not to press Qualcomm employees for the trust, and/or to encourage employees to provide the information (or lack of information) that Qualcomm needed to assert its non-participaton argument and to succeed in this lawsuit.
  • The suppressed emails directly rebutted Qualcomm’s argument that it had not participated in the JVT during the time the H.264 standard was being developed. As such, their absence was critical to Qualcomm’s hope and intent of enforcigng its partents agaisnt Broadcom (as well as presumably all other cellular c ompanies utilizing the H.264 technology in their products).


Qualcomm Mess Engulfs Top IP Firm
Day Casebeer must explain how Qualcomm failed to disclose thousands of documents during litigation with Broadcom
June 7, 2007

Judge Brewster Benchslaps Qualcomm Lawyers
August 8, 2007
The Wall Street Journal Law Blog

Heavy Sanctions Loom Against Attorneys for e-Discovery and other “Aggravated Litigation Abuses”
August 18, 2007
e-Discovery Team Blog

Update of Two Prior Sanctions Blogs: Qualcomm and Morgan Stanley
October 1, 2007
e-Discovery Team Blog

Six Lawyers in Qualcomm Case Sanctioned for ‘Monumental’ Discovery Violations
Long-awaited ruling refers lawyers from Day Casebeer and Heller to Bar for ethics investigation of Qualcomm discovery dispute
January 8, 2008

Qualcomm Sanctions Handed Down, Lessons Learned
January 8, 2008
LawTech Guru Blog

  • In some aspects, this case is similar to the earlier Rambus memory case — where one high-tech company participated in a standards-setting committee to gain an inappropriate business advantage over their competitors.
  • In the Qualcomm case, Qualcomm could not win their patent infringement case against Broadcom if it was found that it had previously participated in the standards-setting body. Thus thousands of requested e-mails were not produced during discovery, and their existence was denied.
  • The court’s problem was in determining the role played by their outside counsel, particularly as Qualcomm preserved its attorney-client privilege, which prevented outside counsel from fully defending their actions.

L’Affaire Qualcomm: Judge Sanctions Six Lawyers
January 8, 2008
The Wall Street Journal Law Blog

Qualcomm’s “Monumental Discovery Violations” Provokes Only Wimpy Sanctions
January 11, 2008
e-Discovery Team Blog

Lion’s Roar becomes a Cat’s Meow: Qualcomm Attorneys Get Off Easy
January 15, 2008
Ride the Lightining Electronic Evidence Blog

Qualcomm Case Sends Tremors Nationwide
January 31, 2008

Day Casebeer Weathers Storm Over Qualcomm Discovery
July 11, 2008