What happened to Qualcomm wasn’t the first case of e-discovery gone wrong — but it might have been the most incredible. For months leading up to a January 2007 patent infringement trial, two California-based technology companies, Qualcomm Inc. and Broadcom Corp., had been locked in a nasty battle over document production. At issue was whether Qualcomm had participated in an industry group, called the Joint Video Team (JVT), that had been working on a new standard for digital video compression — and whether there were any e-mails, memos or other correspondence that said so.

It was a make-or-break point for each side. If Qualcomm had participated in the group before the standard, known as H.264, was released in May 2003, it would not be able to sue Broadcom. Why? Companies that were involved with the JVT had a duty to disclose any patents that covered the H.264 technology. If they participated and kept quiet, they’d be barred from suing for infringement — as Qualcomm was now doing on two of its video compression patents — down the road.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]