13-10-28 Motorola Mobility Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against Apple Re. Qualcomm Chips

7/27/2019 13-10-28 Motorola Mobility Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against Apple Re. Qualcomm Chips

1/35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

CONFIDENTIAL: FILED UNDER SEAL

CASE NO. 3:12-cv-00355-GPC-BLMMOTOROLAS MEM. OF P. AND A. ISO MOT. FOR PSJ RE MOTOROLAS

PATENTS AS APPLIED TO CERTAIN TECHNOLOGY

WINSTON & STRAWN LLPPeter E. Perkowski (SBN: 199491)E-mail: [email protected] S. Grand AvenueLos Angeles, California 90071-1541Tel: (213) 615-1819

Fax: (213) 615-1750WINSTON & STRAWN LLPPeter J. Chassman (pro hac vice)E-mail: [email protected] A. Duffey (pro hac vice)E-mail: [email protected] Louisiana, 25th FloorHouston, Texas 77002-5242Tel: (713) 651-2623Fax: (713) 651-2700

Attorneys for Motorola Mobility LLC

ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED ON FOLLOWING PAGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

APPLE, INC. an APPLE SALESINTERNATIONAL,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC,Defendant.

Case No. 3:12-cv-00355-GPC-BLMMOTOROLAS MEMORANDUM OFPOINTS AND AUTHORITIES INSUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FORPARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENTREGARDING MOTOROLAS PATENTSAS APPLIED TO CERTAINTECHNOLOGY

Complaint filed: February 10, 2012(amended April 2, 2012)(amended August 3, 2012)

Hearing Date: February 7, 2014

Hearing Time: 1:30 p.m.Location: Courtroom 2DJudge: Hon. Gonzalo P. CurielMagistrate Judge: Hon. Barbara Lynn MajorTrial Date: Not Set

Case 3:12-cv-00355-GPC-BLM Document 146 Filed 10/28/13 Page 1 of 21


2/35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27


CASE NO. 3:12-cv-00355-GPC-BLMMOTOROLAS MEM. OF P. AND A. ISO MOT. FOR PSJ RE MOTOROLAS


ADDITIONAL COUNSEL OFRECORD

WINSTON & STRAWN LLPJames F. Hurst (pro hac vice)E-mail: [email protected]

Michael L. Brody (pro hac vice)E-mail: [email protected] W. Wacker DriveChicago, Illinois 60601-9703Tel: (312) 558-5600Fax: (312) 558-5700




3/35



4/35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27


ii CASE NO. 3:12-cv-00355-GPC-BLMMOTOROLAS MEM. OF P. AND A. ISO MOT. FOR PSJ RE MOTOROLAS


TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CasesBeck Park Apts. v. U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Dev.,

695 F.2d 366 (9th Cir. 1982) .............................................................................. 10

GBTI, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of State of Penn.,2011 WL 1332165 (E.D. Cal. April 5, 2011) ..................................................... 10

Hickey v. A.E. Staley Mfg.,995 F.2d 1385 (9th Cir. 1993) ............................................................................ 10

Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co., of Pittsburgh, Penn. v. Argonaut Ins. Co.,701 F.2d 95 (9th Cir. 1983) ................................................................................ 10

Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Am. Intl Surplus lines Ins. Co.,465 F. Supp. 2d 1005 (S.D. Cal. 2006) .............................................................. 10

United States v. Sacramento Mun. Util. Dist.,652 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir.1981) ............................................................................. 10

RulesFed. R. Civ. P. 56 ............................................................................................................ 9



5/35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


1 CASE NO. 3:12-cv-00355-GPC-BLMMOTOROLAS MEM. OF P. AND A. ISO MOT. FOR PSJ RE MOTOROLAS


I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant, Motorola Mobility LLC (Motorola) moves for partial summary

judgment that any injunction that may issue in this case cannot cover Motorolas

patents as applied to .Apple alleges that it is a third party beneficiary under a Patent License

Agreement between Qualcomm and Motorola entered in 1990 and subsequently

amended (referred to, as amended, herein as the PLA). Apple seeks to have the

Court enter a permanent injunction restraining Motorola from prosecuting future (and

presently nonexistent) patent infringement lawsuits against Apple outside of this

Court and outside of Germany based on Apples use of Qualcomm components

purportedly in contravention of the PLA. Motorola strenuously disputes Apples

position and the grant of any injunction. However, even if Apple were to prevail in

establishing rights, and even if the Court were to decide to issue a permanent

injunction, Motorola moves the Court for partial summary judgment that the scope of

any injunction could not encompass a prohibition against Motorolas future assertion

of its patents as they apply to

against Apples products due to their inclusion of

Qualcomm components.

When Apple filed its Original

Complaint on February 10, 2012, Motorola moved to dismiss on March 7, 2012 based

in part on the fact that Apple failed to plead facts or argument supporting its required

relief. See ECF Document Doc. No. 17 at 22. Apple withdrew its original Complain

and filed its First Amended Complaint on April 2, 2012. Motorola again moved to

dismiss on the bases that Apples breach of contract claim was not ripe (see ECF

Document No. 37 at p. 10-11) and Apples Declaratory Judgment claims were not ripe

because they were based on speculative fear of future harm. Motorolas Motion to

Dismiss Apples First Amended Complaint (id. 11-14). The Court granted Motorolas

Motion to Dismiss as the breach of contract claim as presently pled is not ripe. July



6/35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




17, 2013 Order Granting Defendants Motion to Dismiss with Leave to Amend (ECF

Document No. 65). Regarding the declaratory relief claims, the Court found [a]s

presently pled, the declaratory relief claims are therefore too vague and broad to be

justiciable. Id. at 6.Apple then filed its Second Amended Complaint to add more particularity to its

Counts. ECF Document No. 69. None of the counts in Apples Second Amended

Complaint are Id. at 15-21 59-86. However, Apple

failed to amend its prayer for relief, especially with regard to the injunctive relief that

it seeks. Apples present Prayer includes a broad and vague prayer for an injunction:

F. Permanent injunctive relief restraining Motorola and its subsidiaries,affiliates, officers, directors, agents, employees, servants, licensors,

successors, assigns, and all those acting in concert with them, from

prosecuting patent infringement proceedings against Apple based on

Apples use of Qualcomm components licensed under Motorola patents

in any forum outside of this Court and outside of the Federal Republic of

Germany in violation of the Qualcomm-Motorola license agreement.

Id. at p. 22.

Motorolas patents as they apply are unambiguously carved out from

any rights that Apple contentd it has under the PLA as a matter of law. Accordingly

Motorola sought a clarification from Apple of the specifics of the injunction that

Apple seeks:

INTERROGATORY NO. 18Please state, with specificity, the full scope of the injunction that

Apple seeks in this case, including whether and the extent to whichApple seeks to enjoin Motorola from enforcing Motorolas patents, andstate the factual and legal basis therefor, including an IDENTIFICATION

of all evidence (including all Documents) supporting, refuting, orotherwise relating to the foregoing.

Chassman Dec.,1

Ex. 1 (Apples August 15, 2012 Response to Motorolas

Interrogatory No. 18) at 3-4 [005-006]. In response, Apple sidestepped the question in

1All citations to exhibits are to the Declaration of Peter J. Chassman filed

concurrently herewith. Page numbers appearing in [brackets] refer to the exhibit footerpage numbers as required by the local rules.



7/35



8/35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




Apple has made a veiled attempt to shoehorn a separate category

of technology into this case without merit.

Therefore, even if thisCourt were to issue an injunction in this case, as a matter of law, such an injunction

could not preclude Motorola from asserting its patents as they apply against

Apples products due to their inclusion of Qualcomm components.

Motorolas motion is supported by this memorandum and the undisputed

evidence submitted with this motion. Motorola moves the Court to issue summary



9/35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




judgment in favor of Motorola that no injunction in this case could preclude Motorola

from asserting its patents as they apply against Apples products due to their

inclusion of Qualcomm components.

II. BACKGROUNDA.

B. Qualcomm-Motorola PLAQualcomm and Motorola entered a confidential Patent License Agreement in

1990 (Original 1990 PLA) and

See Chassman Dec., Ex. 7 (1990 PLA) [104]-[118];



10/35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




C. Apples Present SuitAll Counts in Apples Second Amended Complaint relate in some way to the

PLA. In Count 1, Apple alleges the Motorola breached the PLA. See Second

Amended Complaint (ECF No. 69) at 59-66. In Count 2, Apple seeks a



11/35



12/35



13/35



14/35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




If contractual terms are unambiguous, contract interpretation is an issue of law

and is properly resolved by the court by summary judgment.Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co.,

of Pittsburgh, Penn. v. Argonaut Ins. Co., 701 F.2d 95, 9697 (9th Cir. 1983); Beck

Park Apts. v. U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Dev., 695 F.2d 366, 369 (9th Cir. 1982)Further, the determination of whether a contractual term is ambiguous is also an issue

of law for the court. United States v. Sacramento Mun. Util. Dist., 652 F.2d 1341

134344 (9th Cir.1981);Beck Park Apts. V. U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Dev., 695

F.2d 366, 369 (9th Cir. 1982); see alsoTravelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Am. Intl Surplus

lines Ins. Co., 465 F. Supp. 2d 1005, 1012 (S.D. Cal. 2006) (When a contract is not

ambiguous, summary judgment may be entered based on the courts interpretation of

clear and unambiguous provisions which present only questions of law.); GBTI, Inc.

v. Ins. Co. of State of Penn., 2011 WL 1332165, at *4 (E.D. Cal. April 5, 2011)

(Interpretation of clear and unambiguous provisions in a contract is a question of law

for the court, allowing summary judgment/ adjudication). [I]t is the lack of

ambiguity within the express terms of the contract that forecloses any genuine issues

of material fact. Hickey v. A.E. Staley Mfg., 995 F.2d 1385, 1389 (9th Cir. 1993).

IV. ARGUMENT

A.



15/35



16/35



17/35



18/35



19/35



20/35



21/35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Motorolas respectfully requests that the Court grant

summary judgment in favor of Motorola that, as a matter of law, no relief in this case

can include an injunction or declaration of rights that includes Motorolas patents asthey apply

Dated: October 23, 2013 Respectfully submitted,

WINSTON & STRAWN LLPBy: /s/ Peter J. Chassman

Peter J. Chassman (admittedpro hac vice)1111 Louisiana, 25th FloorHouston, Texas 77002-5242Tel: (713) 651-2623Fax: (713) 651-2700

Peter E. Perkowski (SBN: 199491)333 S. Grand AvenueLos Angeles, California 90071-1541Tel: (213) 615-1819Fax: (213) 615-1750

James F. Hurst (admittedpro hac vice)Michael L. Brody (admittedpro hac vice)35 W. Wacker DriveChicago, Illinois 60601-9703Tel: (312) 558-5600Fax: (312) 558-5700

Attorne s for Motorola Mobilit LLC



22/35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27


CASE NO. 3:12-cv-00355-GPC-BLMMOTOROLAS STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MAT. FACTS ISO MOT. FOR

PSJ RE PATENTS AS APPLIED TO CERTAIN TECHNOLOGY


Fax: (213) 615-1750WINSTON & STRAWN LLPJames F. Hurst (pro hac vice)E-mail: [email protected] L. Brody (pro hac vice)E-mail: [email protected] W. Wacker DriveChicago, Illinois 60601-9703Tel: (312) 558-5600Fax: (312) 558-5700

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

Peter J. Chassman (pro hac vice)E-mail: [email protected] A. Duffey (pro hac vice)E-mail: [email protected] Louisiana, 25th FloorHouston, Texas 77002-5242Tel: (713) 651-2623Fax: (713) 651-2700




APPLE, INC. and APPLE SALES

INTERNATIONAL,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:12-cv-00355-GPC-BLM

MOTOROLAS STATEMENT OFUNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTSIN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FORPARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENTREGARDING MOTOROLASPATENTS AS APPLIED TOCERTAIN TECHNOLOGY

Complaint filed: February 10, 2012(amended April 2, 2012)

(amended August 3, 2012)

Hearing Date: February 7, 2014Hearing Time: 1:30 p.m.Location: Courtroom 2DJudge: Hon. Gonzalo P. CurielMagistrate Judge:

Hon. Barbara Lynn MajorTrial Date: Not Set

Case 3:12-cv-00355-GPC-BLM Document 146-1 Filed 10/28/13 Page 1 of 8


23/35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


1 CASE NO. 3:12-cv-00355-GPC-BLMMOTOROLAS STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MAT. FACTS ISO MOT. FOR


Defendant Motorola Mobility LLC (Motorola) files this Statement of

Undisputed Material Facts in conjunction with its Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment Regarding Motorolas Patents as Applied to Certain Technology:1

1. All Counts in Apples Second Amended Complaint relate in someway to the PLA.

2. In Count 1, Apple alleges the Motorola breached the PLA. SeeSecond Amended Complaint (ECF No. 69) at 59-66.

3. In Count 2, Apple seeks a Declaratory Judgment that Motoroladid not terminate Apples purported rights under the PLA. See id. at 67-71.

4. In Count 3, Apple seeks a Declaratory Judgment that the PLAshields certain Apple products (iPhone 4S) from a Motorola lawsuit asserting

the 898 patent. See id. at 72-76.

5. In Count 4, Apple seeks a Declaratory Judgment that the PLAshields Apple in any lawsuit by Motorola asserting certain Motorola patents

(specifically ). See

id. at 77-81.

6. In Count 5, Apple alleges that because Qualcommthen Motorolas patent rights are exhausted. See id. at 82-

86.

7. On June 21, 2013, Apple served the Expert Report of Michael C.Keeley, Ph.D. (Keeley Rept. or the Keeley Report) regarding economic

considerations involved in granting Apples requested permanent injunction

and/or an order of specific performance, including whether Apple would sufferirreparable harm and whether certain potential remedies are inadequate to

compensate Apple for its injury. See Chassman Dec., Ex. 3 (Keeley Rept. [22-

73]) at 10 [034].

1The plaintiffs in this suit are Apple, Inc. and Apple Sales International and are

referred to collectively as Apple.



24/35



25/35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




11. Qualcomm and Motorola entered a confidential Patent LicenseAgreement in 1990 (Original 1990 PLA)

See Chassman Dec., Ex. 7 (1990 PLA) [105-114]

14.



26/35



27/35



28/35



29/35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




Dated: October 23, 2013 Respectfully submitted,

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

By: /s/ Peter J. Chassman

Peter J. Chassman (admittedpro hac vice)1111 Louisiana, 25th FloorHouston, Texas 77002-5242Tel: (713) 651-2623Fax: (713) 651-2700

Peter E. Perkowski (SBN: 199491)333 S. Grand AvenueLos Angeles, California 90071-1541Tel: (213) 615-1819

Fax: (213) 615-1750James F. Hurst (admittedpro hac vice)Michael L. Brody (admittedpro hac vice)35 W. Wacker DriveChicago, Illinois 60601-9703Tel: (312) 558-5600Fax: (312) 558-5700

Attorne s for Motorola Mobilit LLC



30/35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27


CASE NO. 3:12-cv-00355-GPC-BLMDECL. OF P. CHASSMAN ISO MOTOROLAS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUM.

JUDG. RE MOTOROLAS PATENTS AS APPLIED TO CERTAIN TECH.


Fax: (213) 615-1750WINSTON & STRAWN LLPPeter J. Chassman (pro hac vice)E-mail: [email protected] A. Duffey (pro hac vice)E-mail: [email protected] Louisiana, 25th FloorHouston, Texas 77002-5242Tel: (713) 651-2623Fax: (713) 651-2700


ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED ON FOLLOWING PAGE



APPLE INC. and APPLE SALES

INTERNATIONAL,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:12-cv-00355-GPC-BLM

DECLARATION OF PETER J.

CHASSMAN IN SUPPORT OFMOTOROLAS MOTION FORPARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENTREGARDING MOTOROLAS PATENTSAS APPLIED TO CERTAINTECHNOLOGY

Complaint filed: February 10, 2012(amended April 2, 2012)(amended August 3, 2012)

Hearing Date: February 7, 2014Hearing Time: 1:30 p.m.

Location: Courtroom 2DJudge: Hon. Gonzalo P. CurielMagistrate Judge: Hon. Barbara Lynn MajorTrial Date: Not Set



31/35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27


CASE NO. 3:12-cv-00355-GPC-BLMDECL. OF P. CHASSMAN ISO MOTOROLAS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUM.


ADDITIONAL COUNSEL OF RECORD

WINSTON & STRAWN LLPJames F. Hurst (pro hac vice)E-mail: [email protected] L. Brody (pro hac vice)

E-mail: [email protected] W. Wacker DriveChicago, Illinois 60601-9703Tel: (312) 558-5600Fax: (312) 558-5700




32/35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


1 CASE NO. 3:12-cv-00355-GPC-BLMDECL. OF P. CHASSMAN ISO MOTOROLAS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUM.


I, Peter J. Chassman, an attorney admitted to practice in the State of Texas,

declare as follows:

1. I am a partner at Winston & Strawn LLP, counsel for Motorola MobilityLLC (Motorola) in the present case pending in the United States District Court forthe Southern District of California.

2. I am familiar with the facts set forth in this declaration from personalknowledge and documents I have reviewed.

3. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of confidential ApplesObjections and Responses to Motorolas Third Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 17-18) in

Case No. 3:12-cv-355-GPC-BLM.

4. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of confidential ApplesFirst Supplemental Objections and Responses to Motorolas Third Set of

Interrogatories (Nos. 17-18) in Case No. 3:12-cv-355-GPC-BLM.

5. Attached as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of excerpted pages fromthe confidential Expert Report of Michael C. Keeley, Ph.D. prepared for Apple, Inc.

in Case No. 3:12-cv-00355-GPC-BLM.

6. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of excerpted pages fromthe confidential transcript of the October 1, 2013 deposition of Michael C. Keeley,

Ph.D. taken in the above-captioned case Case No. 3:12-cv-00355-GPC-BLM.

7. Attached as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of an article titled LTEOverview from 3GPPs website at http://www.3gpp.org/LTE.

8. Attached as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of a press release datedDecember 1, 2010 from Verizon Wireless website http://www.verizonwireless.comentitled Verizon Wireless Launches the Worlds Largest 4G LTE Wireless Network

on December 5.

9. Attached as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of a confidentialagreement between Motorola and Qualcomm dated entitled

Patent License Agreement, produced by Motorola in this case and bearing bates



33/35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




numbers MOTOAPLSDCA0017812-825.

10. Attached as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of a confidentialagreement between Motorola and Qualcomm dated and entitled

produced by Motorola in this case and bearing bates

numbers MOTOAPLSDCA0019092-104.

11. Attached as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of a confidentialagreement between Motorola and Qualcomm entitled

produced by Motorola in this case and bearing bates numbers

MOTOAPLSDCA0024991-93.

12. Attached as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of excerpted pages fromthe confidential transcript of the October 15, 2013 deposition of Qualcomm, Inc.

(Fabian Gonell, designee) taken in the above-captioned case Case No. 3:12-cv-

00355-GPC-BLM.






MOTOAPLSDCA0024485-512.15. Attached as Exhibit 13 is a true and correct copy of a confidential

agreement between Motorola and Qualcomm entitled



16. Attached as Exhibit 14 is a true and correct copy of a confidential



34/35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




agreement between Motorola and Qualcomm entitled



17. I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United Statesthat the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 23rd

day of October 2013, in Houston, Texas.

/s/ Peter J. Chassman

PETER J. CHASSMAN



35/35
