Qualcomm Incorporated v. Apple Inc.

I'll research this case across the suggested sources before writing the overview.

Case Overview

Caption: Qualcomm Incorporated v. Apple Incorporated, No. 3:17-cv-02398-DMS-MDD (S.D. Cal.)
Filed: Nov. 29, 2017 · Closed: April 2019 (global settlement announced Apr. 16, 2019; the docket reflects termination on Apr. 23, 2019 — the metadata's Apr. 16 date matches the settlement announcement, while the clerk's closure entry is dated a week later) · Presiding: Judge Dana M. Sabraw; Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin, San Diego division.

1. Parties and posture

Both parties are operating companies, not NPEs. Qualcomm Incorporated (San Diego) is a fabless semiconductor and licensing company whose patent portfolio it describes as exceeding 130,000 patents and applications worldwide, with revenue split between chip sales (QCT) and licensing (QTL). Apple Inc. (Cupertino) is the device maker and the accused infringer. This was one of three complaints Qualcomm filed in the Southern District of California on Nov. 29, 2017 — the same day Apple counterclaimed against Qualcomm in the earlier San Diego case — asserting 16 additional patents "implemented outside the modem," i.e., non-standard-essential patents chosen to sidestep Apple's FRAND/antitrust defenses. Five of those 16 went into a parallel ITC complaint (Institution No. 337-TA-1093, instituted Jan. 3, 2018) targeting iPhones built with Intel modems, seeking an exclusion order against the iPhone 8 and iPhone X. Sibling district court cases from that day include 3:17-cv-02401 and 3:17-cv-02402 (Source: Qualcomm's brief, Dkt. 109, at 2; IPWatchdog, Dec. 11, 2017; Reuters via Business Insider, Nov. 30, 2017).

Docket history: The complaint asserted 46 claims across five patents (Dkt. 1). Judge Larry Alan Burns declined assignment under General Order 598 and the case was reassigned to Judge Sabraw, who had the related Qualcomm matters (CourtListener docket). The March 8, 2018 case management order (Dkt. 98) capped Qualcomm at ten claims; on July 9, 2018 Judge Sabraw granted leave to assert twelve, and Qualcomm dropped the '336 patent entirely (Dkt. 109, 114). As of April 4, 2019 the case was still set for an Oct. 21, 2019 jury trial before Judge Sabraw (Dkt. 217) — it settled before claim construction briefing matured into a public Markman order.

2. Accused technology and patents

The accused products were the iPhone 7, 7 Plus, 8, 8 Plus and iPhone X, with the A10 Fusion SoC separately accused. The theories mixed RF front-end, power-management, embedded-memory and computational-photography features — deliberately consumer-visible, non-cellular functions:

Patent titles/sketches per AppleInsider and iDownloadBlog's contemporaneous complaint coverage and the Federal Circuit's '674 description in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., 24 F.4th 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Qualcomm sought an injunction plus damages.

3. Why it matters

This case is a case study in non-SEP patent assertion as commercial leverage in a standards war. Because the patents were non-essential and Read-Only "outside the modem," Qualcomm could seek injunctive relief in district court and an exclusion order at the ITC without triggering FRAND commitments — and, by limiting the ITC complaint to Intel-modem iPhones, could squeeze Apple's dual-sourcing strategy. The pressure worked: on April 16, 2019, one day into trial in the companion San Diego case (the contract/antitrust action before Judge Curiel, No. 3:17-cv-00108), the parties announced a worldwide dismissal of all litigation, a six-year global license effective April 1, 2019 with a two-year option, and a multi-year chipset supply agreement; Qualcomm guided to $4.5–4.7 billion in settlement-related revenue for its June 2019 quarter and its stock jumped ~23%, while Intel exited 5G smartphone modems the same day (Qualcomm 8-K/Q3 FY19 release via The Register; NYT via Forbes India).

The case also has an unusually long IPR afterlife: Apple challenged the '674 in IPR2018-01315 and IPR2018-01316, the Board found the claims obvious in a Jan. 3, 2020 consolidated final written decision, the Federal Circuit vacated on the scope of "prior art consisting of patents or printed publications" under § 311(b) in Qualcomm I, 24 F.4th 1367 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 1, 2022), the Board re-invalidated on remand in November 2022, and the Federal Circuit reversed again on April 23, 2025, Nos. 23-1208, -1209, holding the Board erred in permitting applicant-admitted prior art to form the basis of Apple's ground (IPWatchdog; Finnegan copy of 2022 opinion). That doctrine — whether AAPA can anchor an IPR ground — now outlives the district court case by more than six years.

Sourcing caveats

• Counsel: Apple's district court filings were signed by Jason W. Wolff and Benjamin K. Thompson (Fish & Richardson), and Qualcomm's by Michelle Clark, per docket entries 102/109; in the IPRs, Fish & Richardson (Renner, Rozylowicz, Riffe, et al.) represented Apple and Jones Day (Sauer, Johnson, Cochran, et al.) represented Qualcomm, per the Board's July 2022 remand order. I did not independently verify lead trial counsel for Qualcomm in the district court.
• ITC outcome: I confirmed institution (Jan. 3, 2018) and that the investigation was live in mid-2018, but I did not locate a primary source for its termination date; it was presumably terminated as part of the global settlement. Treat that as unverified.
• No Markman/claim construction order or summary judgment ruling in this case is publicly indexed; the case did not reach those milestones in published form before dismissal.
• The "46 claims of five patents" figure and the claim-narrowing sequence come from Qualcomm's own Dkt. 109 brief and Judge Sabraw's July 9, 2018 order.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and case-specific developments.

Let me pull the full docket and key filings.

Good progress. Let me find the claim construction order, dismissal/settlement entries, and Apple's answer.

Bottom line

3:17-cv-02398 was Qualcomm's second-wave, non-standard-essential patent case against Apple in San Diego — five utility patents aimed at the iPhone 7/8/X radio front end, processor power management, SRAM memory and dual-camera depth processing. It was filed the same day Apple amended its own counterclaims against Qualcomm's Snapdragon chips, and it never reached Markman ruling-on-the-merits, summary judgment, or trial. It was litigated hard for ~17 months (claim construction briefing, multiple discovery-dispute motions, contentions amendments, a vacated settlement conference, and a trial reset to October 2019), then wiped out by the global Qualcomm–Apple settlement of 2019-04-16, with dismissal entered shortly after. Its practical significance is as portfolio/leverage litigation inside the broader global war, not as a source of merits precedent.

Caveat up front: I could not retrieve the complete PACER docket in this session (search budget was exhausted after partial docket review). Items marked ⚠️ below are ones where the docket text confirms an event occurred but I could not verify the date or substance. Nothing in this memo is invented; gaps are flagged rather than filled.

---

Chronological timeline

I'll research press coverage of this case and verify the listed articles.

Now let me verify the specific listed articles and search for contemporaneous coverage of the '398 case itself.

Press coverage of Qualcomm v. Apple, No. 3:17-cv-02398

The threshold finding: reporting specific to this docket is thin, and that is itself the story. Because the case settled before claim construction, summary judgment, or trial, there is no verdict, damages award, or merits opinion for outlets to have covered, and I found no article that treats the '398 docket as its subject. Instead, the five patents entered the press record in two ways: (1) as part of the "16 additional patents" bundle Qualcomm unveiled on 29 November 2017, reported at the time as leverage "outside the modem" (IPWatchdog, 2017-12-11; Reuters via Business Insider, 2017-11-30), and (2) through the parallel ITC investigation, 337-TA-1093, where the patents got individualized factual attention the district court never supplied. The most consequential merits finding touching these patents came from an ALJ, not a jury: on 2019-03-26, ALJ MaryJoan McNamara found Apple infringed claim 1 (but not claim 8) of the '674 patent, found claims 1 and 8 valid, found the asserted '356 claims invalid, found no infringement of the '336 claim 4, and recommended a limited exclusion order plus cease-and-desist order against Apple (USITC, Notice of Issuance of Initial Determination). That determination landed three weeks before the settlement and was mooted by it. Separately, the '674 litigation history — Apple's IPR2018-01315/-01316 petitions, the Board's obviousness holding, and the Federal Circuit's two reversals on applicant-admitted prior art — has generated sustained trade-press coverage of the patent long after the district court case closed (IPWatchdog, 2025-04-23).

The settlement, 2019-04-16 — the volume of coverage this case actually generated. BBC News reported that "all litigation between the two companies worldwide" was dropped, including claims involving Apple's contract manufacturers, with an undisclosed payment from Apple to Qualcomm, a six-year global patent license, and a multiyear chipset supply agreement; it also reported Qualcomm shares surging 23% while Apple's were flat, and carried CCS Insight's Ben Wood calling the deal "a huge vindication for Qualcomm" and "likely an acknowledgement by Apple that it had run out of options, particularly when it comes to 5G." Xinhua supplied the market numbers — Qualcomm closing at $70.45, market capitalization above $85 billion, its biggest one-day gain since 1999 — and, citing media reports, framed the stakes as Apple seeking up to $27 billion and Qualcomm up to $15 billion, though those figures describe the companion San Diego contract/antitrust case, not this patent case. Xinhua and People's Daily both reported that Intel withdrew from 5G smartphone modems the same day. Xinhua added that the truce came after Apple's opening argument on the trial's first day and that Qualcomm said further detail would arrive on its 1 May earnings call. Chinese-language coverage was more explicitly evaluative: The Paper, via Chinalawinfo, quoted Wedbush's Dan Ives calling the outcome "a major win for Qualcomm" and said investors were surprised because Apple "realized this was more two kids fighting in a sandbox" facing bigger 5G and iPhone problems — analyst commentary that goes well beyond anything in the court record.

The 2026 license renewal — reported as a Qualcomm-Apple story, not a patent-litigation story. When Qualcomm announced on 2026-09-24 that Apple had renewed the global patent license effective 2027-04-01, essentially every outlet anchored the item in this case's settlement. Reuters framed the relationship as "shaped by a 2019 settlement that ended a two-year global legal battle over wireless-patent royalties and modem-chip supply," noting Apple's undisclosed payment, the worldwide dismissal, and the two-year extension option. Fierce Network stressed that the patent license is "separate from the company's deal to supply Apple with cellular modems for smartphones through 2026," and reported that per a TechInsights teardown only the U.S. variant of the iPhone 18 Pro Max still uses a Qualcomm modem. BW Businessworld, Economic Times and TweakTown all repeat the same framing; TweakTown alone notes the intermediate step that Apple exercised its two-year option in

Sources

• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• David A
• UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
• Qualcomm Incorporated v. Apple Incorporated, 3:17-cv-02398 - CourtListener.com - Qualcomm Incorporated v. Apple Incorporated (3:17-cv-02398)
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• David A
• Trials@uspto
• Trials@uspto
• David A
• This appeal arises from two inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings filed by Apple Inc
• In 2019, Qualcomm and Apple entered into a settlement agreement of all litigation worldwide between the parties and dismissed al...
• Qualcomm, Apple extend chip licensing agreement

I'll research Qualcomm's counsel of record in this case.

Good initial hits. Let me pull the complaint's full signature block and the docket's attorney list.

Norton Rose Fulbright and a "William Edward Devitt" also appear for Qualcomm. Let me verify those and get the full attorney roster.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff Qualcomm Incorporated

Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 3:17-cv-02398-DMS-MDD (S.D. Cal.)

Correction to the earlier caveat: the prior section noted that Qualcomm's district-court lead trial counsel had not been verified and that Qualcomm's filings were "signed by Michelle Clark." Clark did file on Qualcomm's behalf (Dkt. 109, and her declaration identifies her as "an attorney at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, counsel of record in this matter"), but she was not lead. The verified structure is a three-firm team: Quinn Emanuel as national lead/patent trial counsel, Cravath as co-counsel (the Evan Chesler signature block on the complaint itself), and Jones Day (San Diego) as local counsel of record.

1. Verified appearances on the '398 docket

2. Attorneys appearing on Qualcomm filings whose party alignment needs care

• Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP (Houston) — David Ben-Meir (SBN 192028), Daniel Scott Leventhal (Tex. 24050923, pro hac vice), and Eric Hall (Tex. 24012767) appear on the signature block of Qualcomm's Dkt. 109 motion (and in the "additional counsel" federal-court roster tied to Qualcomm's Apple-side filings). Because Dkt. 109 is Qualcomm's own motion, the natural reading is that NRF was on Qualcomm's side — plausibly for the '002 SRAM/memory patent given the Houston/Texas semiconductor bar — but I did not find an NRF appearance notice or engagement confirmation directly on this docket. Flagged as probable, not verified. If precision matters, pull Dkt. 109's full signature page plus any NRF notice of appearance.
• Sean S. Pak (SBN 219032, Quinn Emanuel SF), Nathan A. Hamstra (Ill. 6286325, Quinn Emanuel Chicago), and Scott L. Watson (SBN 219147, Quinn Emanuel LA) are documented as Qualcomm trial counsel in the sibling case No. 3:17-cv-01375-DMS-MDD (they appear in that docket's trial-attorney listings and on Qualcomm's proposed judgment, Dkt. 716). I did not confirm individual appearance entries for them on the '398 docket in the documents reviewed — treat them as the same trial team, not as verified '398 counsel of record.
• Patrick Curran is listed as a Qualcomm ("Plaintiff Attorney") in a Plainsite-derived summary of this case; I could not corroborate the name or firm from a primary filing. Unverified — omit unless confirmed.

3. Structural notes

1. No in-house Qualcomm attorney appeared of record in the filings I reviewed; Qualcomm litigated this case entirely through outside counsel. (Qualcomm's legal department — e.g., its litigation leadership — is not reflected in the '398 docket as counsel of record.)
2. Nothing is sealed as to counsel identity. The case carried a SEALDC flag and numerous sealing motions, but the appearance notices and signature blocks are public, so the roster above is not affected by sealing.
3. The team composition did not change materially between filing (Nov. 2017) and dismissal (Apr. 2019): Nelson/Hewitt/Kay were the constant spine, with Clark and Lozano handling the May 2018 claim-amendment motion and O'Donnell joining the local-counsel line by 2018.
4. Cross-case caution: Because Qualcomm filed three complaints the same day (3:17-cv-02398, -02401, -02402) plus the earlier 3:17-cv-00108 and 3:17-cv-01375, attorney lists from those dockets are frequently conflated in aggregator sites (UniCourt, Plainsite, Docket Alarm). The roster in §1 is limited to persons whose names appear on '398 filings or '398 docket entries.

Primary sources

• Complaint, Dkt. 1 (11/29/2017), signature block (Nelson/Quinn Emanuel; Hewitt & Kay/Jones Day; Chesler/Cravath) — copy
• Qualcomm's motion for leave to assert additional claims, Dkt. 109 (05/22/2018), with Declaration of M. Clark — CourtListener
• Qualcomm's motion, Dkt. 211 (03/26/2019) — CourtListener
• Docket entries for Lozano notice of appearance (01/29/2018) and Devitt PHV approval (01/29/2018) — CourtListener docket
• Trial-team listing (Nelson, Pak, Clark, Lozano, Watson, Hamstra) for the $31M verdict — Yahoo Finance/Bloomberg report
• Michelle Clark biography (Quinn Emanuel → Alston & Bird; describes the Qualcomm semiconductor-vs.-device-maker offensive patent campaign) — Alston & Bird

Confidence: High on Nelson (lead), Chesler, Hewitt, Kay, O'Donnell, Kinton, Clark, and Lozano. Medium on the Norton Rose Fulbright trio's party alignment. Low/unverified on Devitt's firm and on "Patrick Curran."

I'll research Apple's counsel of record in this case across the docket, filings, and firm sources.

Let me pull the docket entries and Apple's answer signature page, plus verify the individual attorneys.

Let me verify the full attorney roster via the docket and check whether WilmerHale attorneys (Tallon, Mueller) appeared in this case.

Bottom line

Apple was represented in 3:17-cv-02398 almost entirely by one firm — Fish & Richardson P.C. — with Fish's San Diego office acting as the local-counsel anchor and Fish's national patent-litigation team (San Diego, Redwood City, Houston, Atlanta, Boston) filling out the roster under pro hac vice admissions. Juanita R. Brooks and Jason W. Wolff are the two names that appear most consistently on Apple's filings; Wolff is the attorney whose CM/ECF login effected Apple's answer and counterclaims in this case.

No Apple in-house lawyer appeared of record on any public signature block I reviewed. I found no separate "local counsel only" firm — Fish's San Diego office (Brooks, Wolff, Sproul, Amon) served that function.

---

Confirmed counsel of record (primary-source signature blocks)

The best single source is Apple's signature block on the Joint Motion to Modify Case Management Order, Dkt. 211 (filed 03/26/2019), which lists the full Apple team and is captioned "Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc." (Dkt. 211 PDF via CourtListener RECAP; CourtListener docket #211). Corroborated by the signature blocks on Dkts. 208/208-1 and by Apple's answer and counterclaims (Dkt. 50), which the docket attributes to "Wolff, Jason."