Free Notice of Related Case - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-01607-JAH-JMA

Document 197

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

EVAN R. CHESLER (pro hac vice pending) PETER T. BARBUR (pro hac vice pending) ELIZABETH L. GRAYER (pro hac vice pending) CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP 825 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 474-1000 Facsimile: (212) 474-3700 STEVEN M. STRAUSS (99153) ([email protected]) MARTIN S. SCHENKER (109828) ([email protected]) JOHN S. KYLE (199196) ([email protected]) COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP 4401 Eastgate Mall San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (858) 550-6000 Facsimile: (858) 550-6402 Attorneys for Defendant QUALCOMM INCORPORATED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BROADCOM CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, Defendant. Case No. 08cv1607-JAH (JMA) QUALCOMM INCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF RELATED CASE Judge: Hon. John A. Houston

08cv1607-JAH (JMA)

[[NYLIT:2486460v1:4154W:09/04/08--03:09 p]]

Case 3:08-cv-01607-JAH-JMA

Document 197

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendant QUALCOMM Incorporated ("Qualcomm") respectfully submits this notice of related case pursuant to Local Rule 40.1(e), to alert the Court of two related cases currently pending in this District before the Honorable William Q. Hayes: · · Meyer v. Qualcomm, Inc., No. 08-CV-0655-WQH (LSP) (S.D. Cal.); and Valikhani v. Qualcomm, Inc., No. 08-CV-0786-WQH (JMA) (S.D. Cal.)

The present action is related to these two actions and therefore should be assigned to Judge Hayes under Local Rule 40.1. Under that rule, "[a]n action or proceeding is related to another action or proceeding where both of them: (1) Involve some of the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims, or (2) Involve the same property, transaction, or event, or (3) Involve substantially the same facts and the same questions of law". Local Rule 40.1(f). Related actions, "[i]n order to avoid unnecessary duplication of judicial effort", are assigned under Local Rule 40.1(h), "to the district and magistrate judge to whom the lowest numbered case was assigned". The present action--like the lower-numbered Meyer and Valikhani actions--is an antitrust case against Qualcomm under the Sherman Act and California's Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiffs in all three cases assert essentially the same theory of liability--namely, that Qualcomm has monopolized certain markets and charged supracompetitive royalties for wireless technology by deceiving a private standards-determining organization known as "ETSI" into choosing to incorporate Qualcomm's patented technology within a third-generation cellular standard called "UMTS". Indeed, because of these similarities, Qualcomm originally had moved to transfer the Meyer and Valikhani actions to the District of New Jersey, where this action had been pending. And, in connection with Plaintiff Broadcom Corporation's ("Broadcom") motion to transfer the present action to this Court, both Broadcom and the New Jersey District Court emphasized the similarity between this action and the Meyer and Valikhani actions. (See Dkt. 175 [Broadcom's Mot. Transfer], at 1 ("[Meyer and Valikhani present questions of law and fact nearly identical to Broadcom's Second Amended Complaint in this proceeding."); Dkt. 187 [Order Transferring Action], at 9-10 ("[T]here are two similar federal cases, which would require depositions of the same witnesses, pending in the Southern District of California.".) Qualcomm -108cv1607-JAH (JMA)
[[NYLIT:2486460v1:4154W:09/04/08--03:09 p]]

Case 3:08-cv-01607-JAH-JMA

Document 197

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

additionally has submitted notices of related case in the Meyer and Valikhani actions. 1 Given their factual and legal similarities, these actions should be treated as "related" under Local Rule 40.1(f). Thus, because Judge Hayes currently is presiding over two related, lower-numbered actions, Qualcomm respectfully requests that the present action be assigned to Judge Hayes under Local Rule 40.1. Dated: September 4, 2008 COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP Steven M. Strauss (99153) Martin S. Schenker (109828) John S. Kyle (199196) By /s/ Samantha Everett (234402) [email protected] CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP Evan R. Chesler Peter T. Barbur Elizabeth L. Grayer Attorneys for Defendant QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
602329 v1/SD

1

26 27 28

The Plaintiff in the Meyer action also had submitted his own notice of related case, purporting to notify the Court of two other cases that he believed were "related" within the meaning of Local Rule 40.1: Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., No. 05cv1392 (S.D. Cal.) ("1392") and Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., 05cv1958 ("1958"). However, neither of those actions satisfied the standard for relatedness under Local Rule 40.1(e) and, in any event, were no longer proceeding on the merits. The Honorable Rudi M. Brewster, who presided over those actions, properly declined an order of transfer pursuant to the "low number" rule.

-2-

08cv1607-JAH (JMA)
[[NYLIT:2486460v1:4154W:09/04/08--03:09 p]]

Case 3:08-cv-01607-JAH-JMA

Document 197-2

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 1 of 2

Case 3:08-cv-01607-JAH-JMA

Document 197-2

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 2 of 2