YOU ARE AT:Archived ArticlesITC judge rules against Qualcomm but stops short of taking action

ITC judge rules against Qualcomm but stops short of taking action

SAN DIEGO—An administrative law judge with the International Trade Commission handed down a split decision in the acrimonious patent dispute between chipmakers Qualcomm Inc. and Broadcom Corp., ruling that Qualcomm did infringe on one of Broadcom’s patents but not on two others. The judge took no action against Qualcomm, and the issue is scheduled to go before the full ITC Feb. 9.

Both Broadcom and Qualcomm issued statements on the ruling, spinning the issue in their favor.

In a press release issued Tuesday, Qualcomm said the International Trade Commission judge ruled that Qualcomm has not infringed on two of the three patents Broadcom said it did, but that Qualcomm did infringe on “certain claims” on the third patent.

According to Qualcomm, the judge did not halt the sale of Qualcomm chips, and decided not to take action against companies that sell handsets with Qualcomm chips.

Despite the ruling that Qualcomm is infringing on Broadcom’s patent, Qualcomm said it continues to believe that Broadcom’s patent is invalid and said it will ask the full commission to reject the judge’s recommendations on that patent.

For its part, Broadcom touted the judge’s ruling that Qualcomm infringed on its patent, and said it expects the commission to issue a “permanent exclusion order” barring Qualcomm from selling its chips. Broadcom further said it expects the commission to issue a cease-and-desist order barring sales of infringing products that have already been sold in the United States.

Mike Burton, an analyst with ThinkEquity Partners L.L.C., said the fact that the judge did not halt the sale of Qualcomm chips stands as a positive for Qualcomm. However, Burton said it is unlikely Broadcom will give up its fight.

The full commission now must review the judge’s findings and should make a final determination in the matter by Feb. 9.

The two companies are engaged in numerous lawsuits against each other involving patent infringement and antitrust claims.

ABOUT AUTHOR