Gamco, here's more from Qualcomm's countercomplaint:
<<184. Qualcomm first proposed arbitration several months before the
licensing negotiations resumed in earnest. During the course of the negotiations, Qualcomm made a series of offers in an attempt to find a mutually agreeable arbitration framework. Qualcomm even offered to arbitrate under the arbitration procedures endorsed by the U.S. FTC in its consent order with Google in 2013.
Consistent with the U.S. FTC’s framework, Qualcomm’s proposal did not mandate any particular valuation methodology and permitted the parties to make whatever arguments they wished to the arbitral panel. By contrast, Apple wanted to place significant constraints on what arguments the parties could raise in arbitration.
185. Qualcomm was willing to arbitrate any license for any portfolio of
patents in which Apple was interested, including the portfolio of patents for which Apple made a counteroffer.
186. But Apple refused every arbitration proposal and put forth an entirely one-sided, unreasonable proposal of its own. Apple’s arbitration proposal, like its negotiating position, required a patent-by-patent analysis and imposed other unfair or unreasonable conditions that attempted to dictate how Qualcomm must present its patents, always in ways that favored Apple. Apple’s repeated insistence on imposing unfair conditions on an arbitration, which it knew Qualcomm could not
accept, demonstrates that Apple has been angling for litigation from the outset and is, in fact, an unwilling licensee.>>
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
