DiNovo Price Obtains Denial of Qualcomm’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Asserting License and Release Arising from Acquisition of CSR plc07/01/2016
DiNovo Price is pleased to announce a victory on behalf of our client Bandspeed, Inc. (“Bandspeed”). On June 26, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, denied the motion for judgment on the pleadings of Qualcomm, Inc, Qualcomm Atheros, Inc., and Qualcomm Innovations Center, Inc. (“Qualcomm”), which asserted that the acquisition of CSR plc by Qualcomm Global Trading Pte. entitled Qualcomm to the benefit of Bandspeed’s previous license agreement with Cambridge Silicon Radio Limited. The court denied the motion, finding “a dispute exists on the face of the pleadings as to the factual relationship between [Qualcomm] and Cambridge Silicon Radio Limited, and the court will not take judicial notice of any facts that would connect [Qualcomm] to Cambridge Silicon Radio Limited.”
In 2012, Bandspeed and Cambridge Silicon Radio Limited entered into a settlement agreement whereby Bandspeed granted a release and license to Cambridge Silicon Radio Limited and its parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates. In their motion for judgment on the pleadings, Qualcomm asserted that they are entitled to the benefit of the previous license and release. In particular, Qualcomm claimed they became either the parent or affiliate of Cambridge Silicon Radio Limited through the acquisition of CSR plc by Qualcomm Global Trading Pte. because Qualcomm Global Trading Pte is a wholly owned subsidiary of Qualcomm and Cambridge Silicon Radio Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of CSR plc. Qualcomm’s pleadings, however, alleged “CSR” was acquired, without specifying whether “CSR” refers to CSR plc or Cambridge Silicon Radio Limited. Further, nothing in the pleadings alleged CSR plc is the parent of Cambridge Silicon Radio Limited. Bandspeed, therefore, denied Qualcomm’s allegation that “Qualcomm Incorporated’s subsidiary Qualcomm Global Trading Pte. Ltd. . . . acquired CSR.”
The court held under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) “[a] motion for judgment on the pleadings ‘is designed to dispose of cases where the material facts are not in dispute . . . .’” When the defendant is the moving party, however, “‘the fact allegations of the complaint are to be taken as true, but those of the answer are taken as true only where and to the extent that they have not been denied or do not conflict with those of the complaint.’” “‘[J]udgment on the pleadings is appropriate only if there are no disputed issues of material fact and only questions of law remain.’” Because the factual relationship between Qualcomm and Cambridge Silicon Radio Limited was in dispute, the court denied Qualcomm’s motion.
The case is Bandspeed, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc. et al., Cause No. 1:14-cv-00436-LY, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
For a copy of the court’s order, click here.
DiNovo Price LLP is an Austin-based law firm that handles patent and antitrust litigation nationwide. DiNovo Price represents inventors, public corporations, privately held businesses, and consumers, both individually and in class actions.