X

Reset Password

Username:

Change Password

Old Password:
New Password:
We have completed your request.

High-Tech Law & Litigation Blog

  • 14
  • June
  • 2018

Authors:

Share on:

Secret CFIUS Request Spurs Qualcomm Shareholder Suit

On June 8, 2018, Qualcomm shareholders filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of California against Qualcomm Inc., its CEO, and its CFO for, essentially, secretly requesting a Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”) review of Broadcom Ltd.’s attempted takeover of Qualcomm. Camp v. Qualcomm Inc., 18-cv-1208 (S.D. Cal. filed June 8, 2018). The CFIUS review, as previously reported by V&E, ultimately led to President Trump’s executive order that ended Broadcom’s takeover efforts.

Read More
  • 21
  • March
  • 2018

Authors:

Share on:

Trump Blocks Qualcomm Acquisition to Preserve U.S. Dominance in 5G and Important Supply Chains (Part 2)

Last Monday, as reported on by V&E, President Trump put an abrupt halt to Singaporean chipmaker Broadcom Ltd.’s efforts to acquire U.S.-based Qualcomm Inc., when he issued an executive order blocking the acquisition for national security reasons. The order followed an investigation into the proposed transaction by the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS” or the “Committee”) which found that the acquisition threatened U.S. leadership in the 5G standards-setting process and could potentially disrupt important Qualcomm product supply chains to U.S. military and government security agencies. The President’s order appears to be another sign of how the U.S. increasingly views a strong domestic technology sector as an integral part of its overall national security strategy.

Read More
  • 15
  • March
  • 2018

Authors:

Share on:

Trump Blocks Qualcomm Acquisition to Preserve U.S. Dominance in 5G and Important Supply Chains (Part 1)

President Trump, on Monday, issued an executive order prohibiting Broadcom Ltd.’s proposed takeover of Qualcomm Inc., and “any substantially equivalent merger, acquisition, or takeover, whether effected directly or indirectly.” The order stated there was “credible evidence” that a Broadcom-controlled Qualcomm “might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States.” The order also comes on the heels of a letter from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”) highlighting security risks involved with the acquisition, including the potential loss of U.S. leadership in the 5G standards-setting process and the disruption of important supply chains. Although not the first time the President has blocked such a transaction, the order appears to reiterate the administration’s focus on maintaining technological leadership in certain technology industries, including those technologies with both a consumer and military purpose.

Read More
  • 12
  • February
  • 2018

Authors:

Share on:

Update: District Court Sets Aside $300,000 Apple Sanction

Last week, we wrote that Apple found itself in hot water when a federal magistrate imposed a $300,000 sanction against the company for failing to meet a Rule 45 (third-party subpoena) document production deadline in the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) case against Qualcomm Inc. In the sanction order, the magistrate cited a similar sanction against Samsung for untimely document production to Apple in an unrelated suit, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2012) [ECF No. 880].

Read More
  • 09
  • February
  • 2018

Authors:

Share on:

Apple Hit with $300,000 Sanction for Missing Document Production Deadline

The Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) case against Qualcomm Inc. — alleging Qualcomm unlawfully maintained a monopoly in baseband processors — is in the midst of a contentious discovery period that has each side scrambling to subpoena documents from various third parties. Apple Inc. is one such third party and is now in hot water for missing a document production deadline, presumably by 12 days. In response, the Northern District of California magistrate judge sent a message to other third parties by sanctioning Apple to the tune of $300,000 ($25,000 per day). Tech companies may view the sanctions as a blessing or a curse, depending on what end of a subpoena they find themselves on.

Read More
  • 18
  • January
  • 2018

Authors:

Share on:

Important News for Publicly Traded Tech Companies: The Supreme Court Will Decide the Constitutionality of the SEC’s ALJ Appointment Process

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) is considered by many to be the nation’s top watchdog on Wall Street — sniffing out insider trading, market manipulation, and financial fraud. But the reality is that any publicly traded company is subject to SEC regulation and enforcement. The tech industry, with its ever-changing landscape, may become a hot bed of SEC enforcement activity, especially as companies continue to navigate uncharted waters such as crypto currencies and innovative “initial coin offering” funding methods.

Read More

Dates

Subscribe for Updates

Receive e-mail updates from the V&E High-Tech Blog team

Follow Us On Linkedin

Contributors

Jason A. Levine

Jason A. Levine Partner

Jennifer C. Chen

Jennifer C. Chen Partner

Devika Kornbacher

Devika Kornbacher Partner

Danny Tobey

Danny Tobey Partner

William R. Vigdor

William R. Vigdor Partner

Marc A. Fuller

Marc A. Fuller Counsel

Thomas W. Bohnett

Thomas W. Bohnett Associate

Megan Coker

Megan Coker Associate

Caroline Colpoys

Caroline Colpoys Associate

Trey Hebert

Trey Hebert Associate

Keeney, Jeremy C.

Jeremy C. Keeney Associate

Howard Lithaw Lim Associate

Kimberly R. McCoy

Kimberly R. McCoy Senior Associate

Elizabeth Krabill McIntyre

Elizabeth Krabill McIntyre Senior Associate

David C. Smith

David C. Smith Senior Associate

Janice Ta

Janice Ta Senior Associate

Margaret D. Terwey

Margaret Dunlay Terwey Associate

Ryan B. Will

Ryan Will Associate

Siho (Scott) Yoo

Siho (Scott) Yoo Senior Associate