The circuit court underscored Qualcomm’s litigation (ediscovery) misconduct impacting its perception of the standards body misconduct:

In our view, the litigation misconduct findings were sufficient standing alone to support the exceptional case determination here, and in the circumstances of the present case it was not error for the district court to additionally consider the related JVT misconduct, which was an important predicate to understanding and evaluating the litigation misconduct.

Opinion [1] here.

Patent attorneys will want to read for its cautions on participating in standards setting bodies (SSB’s).

Important for revenue generation, Qualcomm did get the scope of unenforceability of its patents narrowed.

Ashby Jones of WSJ with historical context [2] here.

Zusha Elinson of the Recorder breaks the story [3] here.

Fios webcast on Judge Barbara Major’s CREDO decision [4] here.  (Just the original decision, at this writing, the CREDO results have not yet been released publicly.)  Judge Major broke new ground on “reasonable inquiries”, attorney certifications with a procedural map for applying sanctions.

Metropolitan Corporate Counsel interview on the Qualcomm case and its impact on the subprime financial crisis litigation [5] here.