- Pros Say: More Retailers to Go Under
- European Central Banks Expected to Slash Rates
- Euro Stocks Rally on Expected Rate Cuts
- MGA Ordered to Stop Selling Bratz Dolls
- Euro Stocks to Open Flat before Rate Decisions
- Nomura to Cut Up to 1,000 Positions in London
- Capital One to Purchase Chevy Chase
- Australia Economy Injured as Vehicle Sales Crash
- Japan Faces Deep Recession, Central Banks Cut Rates
- 3-D In A Recession: Director James Cameron Weighs In
- Lightning Round: Microsoft, Motorola, NYSE and More
- Lightning Round OT: Hertz, Textron and More
- Mad Mail: Cramer's Plan for the SEC
- The Plaxico Burress Good Judgment Award
- Cramer's Call on Celgene
- Your First Move For Thursday December 4th
- Web Extra: Fast & Furious Trades For Thursday
- Cramer's M&A Plays
- Nomura to layoff up to 1,000 employees in London
- Danish airline buys parts of bankrupt Sterling
- Britain delays decision on Heathrow expansion
- Swedish Riksbank cuts interest rate by 1.75 points
- Salzgitter, Beiersdorf to join German DAX-30 Index
- UK new car sales down 37 percent in November
- China's currency slips vs dollar as officials meet
- Team studies perennial fix to perennial problem
- Mongolia to reopen talks on mine development
- China's Okay Airways suspends flights for 1 month
NEW YORK - A federal appeals court ruled Monday that a lower court went too far in ordering that two Qualcomm Inc. patents be held to be unenforceable.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed with the lower court that Qualcomm was wrong not to reveal that it owned the two patents when it became a member of a group that created the digital video standard known as h.264, with incorporates the patented technologies.
The video standard is widely used for streaming Internet video, including by YouTube, and on Blu-ray discs.
Because of Qualcomm's behavior, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California ruled last year that its two patents be held to be unenforceable in all contexts.
The appeals court disagreed with the wide scope of the district court's order, and said Monday the patents should only be unenforceable when it comes to h.264 products. It sent the case back to the lower court.
The district court's ruling resulted from a suit Qualcomm filed against rival chip maker Broadcom Corp. in 2005, saying it infringed the two patents.
David Rosmann, Broadcom's vice president for intellectual property litigation, said it was "highly significant" that the appeals court had sided with the district court in finding that Qualcomm's participation in the standards group made its patents unenforceable.
The ruling will have ramifications for Qualcomm's participation in other standard-setting bodies as well, particularly when it comes to cellular technologies, Rosmann said.
Broadcom of Irvine, Calif., and San Diego-based Qualcomm frequently battle each other in court over patent rights.
A Qualcomm representative did not immediately return a call for comment.


