Last Tuesday, we reported that the former Apple engineer Arjuna Siva deps court of San Diego on the case involving the giant of Cupertino and Qualcomm. Now, Ma Juanita Brooks's lawyer has argued that the company has reason to believe that someone tried to influence Siva's testimony, as the company said. CNET.
At Apple, Siva worked precisely with the deployment of Qualcomm modems in iPhones, which is why he was cited by Apple as co-creator of the technology of one of the patents discussed in the case. According to Cupertino's giant, his former employee had invented the technology and should therefore be credited with the chipmaker's patent.
The situation changed when Siva, who now works for Google, said that many elements of the patent in question (which covers a technology that allows the smartphone to quickly connect to the internet right after it is turned on) were his ideas, but he was not. Her inventor is contrary to what Apple was hoping to use in her defense against Qualcomm's complaint.
On accusation of false testimony, the chipmaker ridiculed the action and denied it. The judge presiding over the case, Dana Sabraw, ruled that Apple "has no evidence" to support the charge; however, Ma's consultant suggested a possible relationship between Siva's stake and Qualcomm.
For Brooks, the change in Siva's testimony came after the engineer's new lawyer, Matt Warren, came into play. In this regard, Apple said Warren "played dirty" with the company for being a partner with Quinn Emanuel, the agency that currently represents Qualcomm. Warren, who was also summoned to appear in court, alleged that it was Google that provided Siva's defense.
After the (negative) repercussion of the accusation of false testimony, Ma apparently left the position of attack and should not proceed with that action, as Siva's testimony was "delivered as expected," as Brooks explained in the report. Will understand
Switching to Intel “ate it all”
During the presentation of Apple and Qualcomm's final arguments at this week's San Diego hearing, the Cupertino giant claimed that the court battle was not about patents, and that the real motivation for what the chipmaker was frustrated with was the replacement of some of their modems with Intel's on iPhones starting in 2016.
This case started when we started using Intel as a second vendor. Qualcomm opened the drawer, took off some old patents and threw them against the wall to see if they would stick.
Qualcomm attorney David Nelson rebutted this claim and said that the dispute in the courts has nothing to do with suppliers, but that the company has the right to obtain a return on its intellectual property.
As we explained in the previous post, Qualcomm charged Ma $ 31 million in damages for allegedly infringing its patents on iPhones sold from July 2017 ($ 1.20 per iPhone) when the lawsuit was filed. A jury of eight people will decide the end (or not) of this mess soon.