Legal Opinion
Qualcomm Incorporated v. Broadcom Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided December 1, 2008No. 2007-1545, 2008-1162PublishedCited by 39 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PROST, Circuit Judge.
This patent infringement ease involves the consequence of silence in the face of a duty to disclose patents in a standards-setting organization (“SSO”). The district court concluded that Qualcomm breached its duty to disclose U.S. Patent Nos. 5,452,-104 (“'104 Patent”) and 5,576,767 (“'767 Patent”) to the Joint Video Team (“JVT”) SSO. As a remedy, the district court ordered the '104 and '767 Patents (and related patents) unenforceable against the world. Additionally, based on both Qual-comm’s JVT misconduct and its litigation misconduct, the court determined that this was…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- A.C. Aukerman Company v. R.L. Chaides Construction Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1992
- C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories and Np Medical, Inc., Defendants/cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1997
- Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2007
- Voda v. Cordis Corp.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2011
- Medtronic Navigation, Inc. v. Brainlab Medizinische Computersysteme GMBHCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2010
- Inserso Corp. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2020
- Old Reliable Wholesale, Inc. v. Cornell Corp.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2011
- Sanofi-Aventis v. Apotex Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2011
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.