Apple Says Someone Tried to Sway the Testimony of Its Former Engineer in Ongoing Qualcomm Case
The ongoing legal battle between Apple and Qualcomm has been full of twists and turns. As per Apple, the tech for one of the patents Qualcomm alleges Apple has infringed was helped co-founded by one of the company’s former engineers. However, Arjuna Siva, former Apple engineer, in his testimony said that while he contributed ideas to the technology, he does not claim to be an inventor.
Now, Apple says that they have reason to believe that someone tried to sway Siva’s testimony, though the company does not know who.
In a filling on Tuesday, Apple counsel Juanita Brooks wrote that the iPhone maker had grounds to suspect someone was trying to sway Arjuna Siva’s testimony, though she said the company doesn’t know who. The iPhone maker has argued that Siva, a former Apple engineer, co-invented technology in one of three disputed Qualcomm patents and should be named on it.
Apple had made a similar claim last week which Qualcomm called out as “ridiculous.” Judge Dana Sabraw also said that there was “no evidence” on the basis of which Apple was making the allegation.
Siva’s appearance in the court itself has been full of drama. He first backed out of his appearance after retaining a new lawyer, Matt Warren, who suggested that he does not attend the hearing unless subpoenaed. Warren was previously one of the partners at the law firm Quinn Emanuel which currently represents Qualcomm. This led Apple to file subpoenas for both Siva and Warren to appear in the court.
The patent in question revolves around how quickly a phone connects to the internet after booting up. As per Apple, their engineer Arjuna Siva came up with the idea before the release of the first iPhone in 2011 featuring a Qualcomm chip. Apple and Qualcomm were then working on a modem that met its requirements and could be used in its devices.
Despite Apple’s initial claims about someone trying to sway Siva’s testimony, Apple’s counsel Brooks said that the engineer’s testimony has been consistent with original plans so they see no reason for “further action”
Like this post? Share it!