Qualcomm to ask President Bush to veto ITC ruling
By Colleen Taylor, Contributing Editor -- 6/8/2007
Refusing to accept the latest ruling in favor of its courtroom rival Broadcom Corp., Qualcomm Inc. is taking its case all the way to the White House.
Last year, an International Trade Commission (ITC) administrative law judge, and later the commission itself, found that Qualcomm's cellular baseband chips infringe five claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,714,983, which relates generally to power conservation in cellular phones.
Late Thursday, the six-member commission issued its final determination on remedy for Qualcomm's infringement. The ITC has ordered that certain Qualcomm chips, and future downstream products such as cellular phones that incorporate those chips, that infringe a Broadcom patent be barred from importation into the U.S. The ITC also entered a cease and desist order prohibiting Qualcomm from engaging in certain activities related to the infringing chips.
Not surprisingly, Broadcom said in a statement today that it was "very pleased" with the outcome.
Qualcomm said that it was not the only company that would be negatively affected by the ruling. "Broadcom brought this litigation against Qualcomm, but has used it as a vehicle to attack the U.S. cellular industry," Qualcomm said in its statement. "The public injury that would result from the remedy imposed by the commission is grossly disproportionate to any benefit flowing to Broadcom from such broad enforcement of a recently purchased patent."
The measure "will limit consumer choice and access to mobile broadband services, be harmful to operators, manufacturers and the economy, and pose risks to public safety communications,” Qualcomm CEO Paul Jacobs said in the company's statement. "We will ask the White House to veto this decision and avoid turning back the clock on the tremendous gains that have been achieved in mobile broadband communications, disaster preparedness and emergency response. … The way for the industry, public safety and end users to move forward with certainty is for the President to veto this order."
© 2009, Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved.
