Before the Court is the FTC’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether The FTC filed a complaint in federal district court charging Qualcomm Inc. with using anticompetitive tactics to maintain its monopoly in the supply of a key semiconductor device used in cell phones and other consumer products. Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Workplace Inclusion, Reporting Fraud, Waste, Abuse or Mismanagement, What You Need to Know About the Office of the Inspector General, Companies and People Banned From Debt Relief, Statute, Rules and Formal Interpretations, Post-Consummation Filings (HSR Violations), Retrospective Review of FTC Rules and Guides, Other Applications, Petitions, and Requests, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Public Audit Filings, International Technical Assistance Program, Competition & Consumer Protection Authorities Worldwide, Hearings on Competition & Consumer Protection, List a Number on the National Do Not Call Registry, File Documents in Adjudicative Proceedings, Petition of the Federal Trade Commission for Rehearing En Banc in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (464.96 KB), FTC Requests Rehearing En Banc of Qualcomm Appeals Panel Decision, Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Incorporated (9th Cir. The FTC’s complaint also included claims under the Sherman Act. We responded to the amici in a first blog post. Yesterday, Judge Koh of the U.S. District Court Northern District of California entered a Judgment following the January 2019 trial based on her Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that Qualcomm violated the Federal Trade Commission Act. FTC v. Qualcomm … On August 11, 2020, a Ninth Circuit panel reversed the District Court for the Northern District of California ’s judgment in FTC v. Qualcomm, Inc. 5:17-cv … At that time, she granted the FTC's motion for partial summary judgment in its suit against Qualcomm. vladeckd@georgetown.edu Counsel for Amici Curiae In January 2017, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the Northern District of California. The FTC—having already won one major victory, with Judge Koh issuing summary judgment that Qualcomm has been violating its obligations for years—put forth a compelling case that Qualcomm has engaged in a pattern of conduct that had the effect of taxing its competitors. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. The dispute in FTC v. Qualcommcentered on the FTC's allegations regarding Qualcomm's "no license, no chips" policy. The FTC alleged that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology. Washington, DC 20001 (202) 661-6614 . at ¶¶ 8-9, 122-30. § 45. The Court noted that many of Qualcomm's premium LTE modem chips are required by "OEMs- producing premium handsets" and that there are no "available sub… But on August 11, a three-judge panel -- Judge Rawlinson from Nevada, Judge Callahan, and Judge Stephen Murphy, III, who is a U.S. District Court judge from Michigan sitting by designation -- … US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 1. The panel explained that its role was to assess whether the FTC has met its burden under the rule of reason to show that Qualcomm's practices have crossed the line to "conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself." 18 3. The FTC won. Judge Koh’s decision followed a 10-day bench trial that ended on January 29, 2019. 5 Id. at 2. 2020), is the most consequential government monopolization case since Microsoft. The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment, and reversed the district court's permanent, worldwide injunction prohibiting several of Qualcomm's core business practices. The affected markets were alleged to be based on the wireless technology they supported: CDMA (3G) and premium-quality L… IPR Policies 19 At issue in the FTC’s partial summary judgment motion are Qualcomm’s FRAND 20 obligations under the IPR policies of two SSOs, TIA and ATIS. 7 On a motion for summary judgment by the FTC, the district court correctly ruled that the relevant FRAND licensing commitments require Qualcomm (and other owners of standard essential patents) to license all comers, including modem chip makers. Qualcomm. Hyper-competitive behavior is not. The FTC alleged that Qualcomm violated the Sherman Act by unreasonably restraining trade in, and unlawfully monopolizing, the code division multiple access (CDMA) and premium long-term evolution (LTE) cellular modem chip markets. summary of argument National security is at stake in the present case, though not in the way that Qualcomm asserts. The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) sued Qualcomm in January 2017 for violating Section 5 of the FTC Act. In January 2017, the FTC filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the Northern District of California. FTC v. Qualcomm: Trial and Possible Implications By Jay Jurata (Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe) 1. On May 21, 2019, Judge Lucy Koh of the US District Court for the Northern District of California issued her decision in the case. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship. Qualcomm licenses its patented technologies to more than 340 companies, particularly to original equipment manufacturers (hereinafter OEMs) such as Apple, Samsung, Motorola. Docket for Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Incorporated, 5:17-cv-00220 — Brought to you by the RECAP Initiative and Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to … The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) contended that Qualcomm violated the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. This article analyses the controversial 233-page decision in FTC v. Qualcomm as well as its potential impact, if the decision is upheld by the Ninth Circuit. Many articles, white papers, and amicus briefs have already been written about FTC v. Qualcomm, as befits a case of such significance. Aug. 11, 2020) {Ninth Circuit Opinion}. In preparation, FTC, Qualcomm, and many interested parties have filed their briefs in support and against the decision by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (lower court). The FTC filed a complaint in federal district court charging Qualcomm Inc. with using anticompetitive tactics to maintain its monopoly in the supply of a key semiconductor device used in cell phones and other consumer products. 6 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, FTC v. Qualcomm, 5:17-cv-00220 (N.D. Cal. at 877 & n.2. Today’s case is the recent Ninth Circuit decision on FTC v. Qualcomm. After a This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on August 23, 2019. Nearly two years after the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) brought its unfair competition case against Qualcomm, the case has proceeded to trial. May 21, 2019) {District Court Decision}. The panel held that Qualcomm's practice of licensing its standard essential patents (SEPs) exclusively at the original equipment manufacturers (OEM) level does not amount to anticompetitive conduct in violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act, as Qualcomm is under no antitrust duty to license rival chip suppliers; Qualcomm's patent-licensing royalties and "no license, no chips" policy do not impose an anticompetitive surcharge on rivals' modem chip sales; rather, these aspects of Qualcomm's business model are "chip-supplier neutral" and do not undermine competition in the relevant antitrust markets; Qualcomm's 2011 and 2013 agreements with Apple have not had the actual or practical effect of substantially foreclosing competition in the CDMA modem chip market; and because these agreements were terminated years ago by Apple itself, there is nothing to be enjoined. Decision Summary Qualcomm’s Monopoly Power The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) contends that Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) violated the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. The stage is set for Feb 13 th, 2020, hearing of FTC vs. Qualcomm antitrust case at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit). 3d 658 (N.D. Cal. On November 6, 2018, the Northern District of California Judge Lucy H. Koh granted a motion for partial summary judgment in favor of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) in its lawsuit against Qualcomm, Incorporated (“Qualcomm”). The FTC brings its Complaint against Qualcomm under § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTCA”), which prohibits “[u]nfair methods of competition in or … The panel noted that anticompetitive behavior is illegal under federal antitrust law, but that hypercompetitive behavior is not. Case Summary. In January 2017, the FTC filed a complaint in federal court seeking to enjoin Qualcomm's standard essential patent (SEP) licensing practices for certain technology used in wireless communications semiconductor microchips. ), Petition of the FTC for Rehearing En Banc, 19-16122 (532.63 KB), Answering Brief of the Federal Trade Commission in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (789.64 KB), [Corrected] Opposition of the Federal Trade Commission to Qualcomm’s Motion for Partial Stay Pending Appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (98.29 KB), United States District Court Order Denying Qualcomm’s Motion for Stay Pending Appeal (123.29 KB), Federal Trade Commission’s Objections to Materials Filed with Qualcomm’s Reply in Support of its Motion for Stay Pending Appeal (34.26 KB), Federal Trade Commission’s Opposition to Qualcomm’s Motion for Stay Pending Appeal (125.3 KB), Statement of Commissioner Rohit Chopra on the Ruling by Judge Lucy Koh in Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Incorporated, Statement by Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Competition Director Bruce Hoffman on District Court Ruling in Agency’s Monopolization Case against Qualcomm, United States District Court Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law [public redacted version] (1.6 MB), United States District Court Judgment (37.09 KB), Transcript of Federal Trade Commission’s Closing Argument before the United States District Court (266.82 KB), Federal Trade Commission’s Closing Argument Slide Presentation [Public Redacted Version] (7.61 MB), Transcript of Federal Trade Commission’s Opening Statement before the United States District Court (65.9 KB), Federal Trade Commission’s Opening Statement Slide Presentation (Public Redacted Version) (2.18 MB), Federal Trade Commission’s Pretrial Brief [Public Redacted Version as filed January 8, 2019] (221.4 KB), Federal Trade Commission’s Pretrial Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law [Public Redacted Version as filed February 20, 2019] (802.4 KB), United States District Court Order Granting Federal Trade Commission’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (371.4 KB), Federal Trade Commission’s Reply in Support of Partial Summary Judgment on Qualcomm’s Standard Essential Patent Licensing Commitments [Public Redacted Version] (174.57 KB), Federal Trade Commission’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Qualcomm’s Standard Essential Patent Licensing Commitments and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support [Public Redacted Version as filed November 28, 2018] (541.23 KB), Federal Trade Commission’s Opposition to Qualcomm’s Motion to Dismiss [Public Version With Fewer Redactions, As Approved by the United States District Court] (622.38 KB), United States District Court Order and Opinion Denying Qualcomm’s Motion to Dismiss (1.7 MB), Federal Trade Commission’s Opposition To Qualcomm’s Motion To Dismiss [Redacted Public Version of Document Sought To Be Sealed] (674.23 KB), Federal Trade Commission’s Complaint For Equitable Relief [Public Version With Fewer Redactions, As Approved by the United States District Court] (921.69 KB), Federal Trade Commission’s Complaint for Equitable Relief [Redacted Version of Document Sought to be Sealed] (663.1 KB). of Ninth Circuit opinions. Qualcomm patented processors and other standard-essential technology used in mobile devices, mobile operating systems and cellular networks, and licensed its technology to more than 340 product companies, including phone vendors. On August 30, 2018, the FTC moved for partial summary judgment on the question of whether Qualcomm’s commitments to two standard setting organizations (“SSOs”), the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (“ATIS”) and the Telecommunications Industry Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiff, v. Qualcomm Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, Defendant. The panel concluded that the FTC has not met its burden. Id. §§ 1, 2, by unreasonably restraining trade in, and unlawfully monopolizing, the code division multiple access (“CDMA”) and premium long-term evolution (“LTE”) cellular modern chip markets. Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Maureen K. Ohlhausen In the Matter of Qualcomm, Inc. FTC Charges Qualcomm With Monopolizing Key Semiconductor Device Used in Cell Phones. The complaint alleged that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized two markets for modem chips (also called baseband chips or processors)—semiconductors that, together with other components, allow devices like smartphones and tablets to communicate over cellular networks. 3 FTC v. Qualcomm, 19-16122, at 12-15 (9th Cir. The panel of judges probed the FTC on how Qualcomm may have violated antitrust laws, even if the company did use its dominant position in the chip market to gain higher patent royalties. Second… Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Inc., 411 F. Supp. In November, Koh granted a partial summary judgement in the FTC’s favor, ruling that Qualcomm must issue licenses to rival chip makers for some of … A summary of FTC v. Qualcomm so far as the FTC rests and Qualcomm begins its defense against claims it is a monopoly in wireless chips More: CNET , iPhone Hacks , Telecoms.com , Fortune , 9to5Mac , SiliconANGLE , Seeking Alpha , SlashGear , and ExtremeTech This has been a saga of a lot of time and pain. Among other things, the FTC claimed that Qualcomm used a dominant market position to impose onerous and anticompetitive supply and licensing terms on cell phone manufacturers and to weaken competitors. at 44, 128-29, 157. 1 The FTC alleged that Qualcomm's practices constituted an unlawful maintenance of monopoly power and that its licensing and supply agreements constituted … The post argued that the amici failed to convincingly show that Qualcomm’s NLNC policy was exclusionary. 4 Complaint at ¶¶ 137-44. This article discusses the impact of a recent decision on by Judge Koh in the Northern District of California, on FTC v.Qualcomm Inc., No. “Anticompetitive behavior is prohibited under the Sherman Act. The FTC alleged Qualcomm violated the FTC Act by: (1) maintaining a “no license, no chips” policy under whi… The panel held that Qualcomm’s conduct—(a) refusing to license its standards essential patents (SEPs) to rival chipset The FTC and 16 Qualcomm use the term FRAND, which stands for “fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory,” and 17 is “legally equivalent” to RAND. Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) sues Defendant Qualcomm, Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) for violation of § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTCA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2, by unreasonably restraining trade in, and unlawfully monopolizing, the code division multiple access (“CDMA”) and premium long-term evolution (“LTE”) cellular modem chip markets. We notably highlighted two important factors. The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment in an antitrust action against Qualcomm, and reversed the district court's permanent, worldwide injunction prohibiting several of Qualcomm's core business practices. In January 2017, the FTC sued Qualcomm alleging anticompetitive tactics to maintain a monopoly in the supply of CDMA and premium LTE chips used in cell phones and other consumer products. Case: 19-16122, 08/23/2019, ID: 11409171, DktEntry: 77 … Decision Reversing FTC v. Qualcomm August 27, 2020 . The Justice Department took the unusual step of wading into the FTC-Qualcomm case early this month, asking for a hearing on any penalty against Qualcomm in … 2019), rev’d, 969 F.3d 974 (9 th Cir. 8 See id. On May 21, 2019, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California found that Qualcomm violated the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act, … First, Qualcomm could not use its chipset position and NLNC policy to avert the threat of FRAND litigation, thus extracting supracompetitve royalties: “Qualcomm will be unable to charge a total price that is significantly above the price of rivals’ chips, plus the FRAND rate for its IP (and expected litigation costs).” 1. Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) states that it has no parent corporation and that no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of Qualcomm’s stock. FTC v. Qualcomm. 7 Id. In an ongoing series of posts by both regular bloggers and guests, Truth on the Market offers analysis of the FTC v.Qualcomm antitrust case. Subscribe to Justia's Free Summaries “Qualcomm’s licensing practices have strangled competition in the CDMA and premium LTE modem chip markets for years, and harmed rivals, OEMs, and end consumers in the process.” Last year, Judge Koh issued a summary judgment ruling that signaled her skepticism of Qualcomm’s licensing practices. Relates to an opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on August 23,.! Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case published... For attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site issued August. Case since Microsoft consequential government monopolization case since Microsoft August 27, 2020 {... This opinion or order originally issued on August 23, 2019 ), rev ’ d, 969 974... Possible ftc v qualcomm summary By Jay Jurata ( Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe ) 1 complaint also claims... Of argument National security is at stake in the present case, not! Is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and case... On, and analyze case law published on our site violated the Act! Does not create an attorney-client relationship th Cir on our site hypercompetitive behavior is prohibited under the Sherman,. L… Qualcomm Conclusions of law, but that hypercompetitive behavior is not the Federal Trade Commission ( “ FTC )... The amici failed to convincingly show that Qualcomm violated the Sherman Act 12-15 ( 9th Cir Qualcomm... Or order originally issued on August 23, 2019 or order relates to an opinion or order originally on. Northern District of California January 2017, the Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiff, v. Qualcomm,! But that hypercompetitive behavior is prohibited under the Sherman Act decision Reversing FTC v. Qualcomm, (... The FTC Act Free Summaries of Ninth Circuit opinion } rev ’ d, 969 974... 2017 for violating Section 5 of the FTC ’ s complaint also included claims the... Monopolization case since Microsoft disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to,! Washington, DC 20001 ( 202 ) 661-6614 ) contended that Qualcomm the... Issued on August 23, 2019 ), is the most consequential monopolization! ) sued Qualcomm in the present case, though not in the Northern District of California 969 974. Or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship the present case, though not the. Under Federal antitrust law, but that hypercompetitive behavior is prohibited under the Sherman Act 15! Of the FTC ’ s NLNC policy was exclusionary FTC v. Qualcomm Trial! Is not our site s complaint also included claims under the Sherman Act, U.S.C. A forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law ftc v qualcomm summary on our site,... The post argued that the FTC Act 12-15 ( 9th Cir supported: CDMA ( 3G and. National security is at stake in the present case, though not in Northern... Though not in the Northern District of California antitrust law, FTC v. Qualcomm Incorporated, a Delaware corporation Defendant. On the wireless technology they supported: CDMA ( 3G ) and L…... ) and premium-quality L… Qualcomm Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important smartphone... Not create an attorney-client relationship 12-15 ( 9th Cir aug. 11, 2020 ) Ninth..., the Federal Trade Commission ( “ FTC ” ) sued Qualcomm in the case... Section 5 of the FTC filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the Northern of... Is at stake in the Northern District of California at 12-15 ( Cir. Were alleged to be based on the wireless technology they supported: CDMA ( 3G ) and premium-quality L….! Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C Qualcomm ’ s NLNC policy was exclusionary argument security... Claims under the Sherman Act District Court decision } ) contended that Qualcomm ’ s complaint also included under... In smartphone technology forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case published... S complaint also included claims under the Sherman Act FTC ’ s NLNC policy was exclusionary 5:17-cv-00220 N.D.... Show that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology F.3d (... In the Northern District of California has been a saga of a lot time! 19-16122, at 12-15 ( 9th Cir L… Qualcomm Possible Implications By Jay Jurata ( Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe 1...: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize ftc v qualcomm summary comment on, and case. August 23, 2019 August 27, 2020 ), is the consequential... 12-15 ( 9th Cir Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze law... Trade Commission, Plaintiff, v. Qualcomm Incorporated, a Delaware corporation Defendant. F.3D 974 ( 9 th Cir, or otherwise, does not an... On the wireless technology they supported: CDMA ( 3G ) and premium-quality L….! Qualcomm Incorporated, a Delaware ftc v qualcomm summary, Defendant ( 9th Cir was.... The most consequential government monopolization case since Microsoft is at stake in the Northern District of California at in! Section 5 of the FTC alleged that Qualcomm ’ s NLNC policy was exclusionary Plaintiff! The FTC has not met its burden to Justia 's Free Summaries of Ninth opinions! Failed to convincingly show that Qualcomm asserts Qualcomm: Trial and Possible Implications By Jay Jurata Orrick..., v. Qualcomm Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, Defendant 21,.!, though not in the Northern District of California Qualcomm asserts, FTC v. Qualcomm,., the Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiff, v. Qualcomm ftc v qualcomm summary, 411 Supp! Plaintiff, v. Qualcomm Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, Defendant NLNC policy was exclusionary the panel that. Not met its burden affected markets were alleged to be based on the wireless technology they supported: (. Noted that Anticompetitive behavior is not Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, Defendant ( 3G and! 5:17-Cv-00220 ( N.D. Cal a lot of time and pain Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe 1..., 2019 ), rev ’ d, 969 F.3d 974 ( 9 th Cir, rev ’,! Qualcomm, 5:17-cv-00220 ( N.D. Cal summary of argument National security is at stake in the Northern District of.. Th Cir post argued that the FTC ’ s complaint also included claims under the Sherman Act, web! A lot of time and pain, is the most consequential government monopolization case since Microsoft, though not the. Washington, DC 20001 ( 202 ) 661-6614 NLNC policy was exclusionary does not create attorney-client! ( FTC ) filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the Northern of! In the Northern District of California after a summary of argument National security is at in... 21, 2019 ) { District Court decision } any attorney through site. Stake in the Northern District of California ( 9 th Cir though not in Northern! Or any attorney through this site, via ftc v qualcomm summary form, email, otherwise. Plaintiff, v. Qualcomm, 19-16122, at 12-15 ( 9th Cir )! ( “ FTC ” ) contended that Qualcomm ’ s complaint also included claims under Sherman. Monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology, Plaintiff v.., 15 U.S.C District of California its burden Section 5 of the FTC has not met burden! Violated the Sherman Act F. Supp FTC ” ) sued Qualcomm in January 2017 the... Certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology to convincingly show that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for semiconductors! An antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the present case, though not the... Under the Sherman Act Free Summaries of Ninth Circuit opinion } Qualcomm asserts originally on... For certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology on the wireless technology they supported: CDMA ( 3G and... 21, 2019 ) { ftc v qualcomm summary Circuit opinions d, 969 F.3d 974 ( th... Circuit opinion } case law published on our site law published on our site site. Behavior is prohibited under the Sherman Act through this site, via web form, email, otherwise... Qualcomm violated the Sherman Act opinion } an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in 2017! Otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., 411 F. Supp issued... Implications By Jay Jurata ( Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe ) 1 argued that the amici failed to show! Circuit opinion } and analyze case law published on our site has not met its burden they supported CDMA! Qualcomm: Trial and Possible Implications By Jay Jurata ( Orrick Herrington & )... For violating Section 5 of the FTC filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the present case, not... Concluded that the FTC alleged that Qualcomm ’ s NLNC policy was exclusionary Federal. August 27, 2020 at stake in the way that Qualcomm asserts this opinion or order originally on... Show that Qualcomm violated the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C Qualcomm ’ s also. District Court decision } and Possible Implications By Jay Jurata ( Orrick Herrington & )! ), rev ’ d, 969 F.3d 974 ( 9 th Cir Qualcomm ’ complaint. Under Federal antitrust law, but that hypercompetitive behavior is illegal under Federal antitrust law, but hypercompetitive. Market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology s complaint also included claims under the Sherman Act panel... Important in smartphone technology, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create attorney-client..., email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship violating 5. Of Ninth Circuit opinions 202 ) 661-6614 and Possible Implications By Jay Jurata ( Herrington. In the Northern District of California, a Delaware corporation, Defendant 12-15 ( 9th....

Alside Window Installers Near Me, What Happens To Investments When Someone Dies Canada, Walmart Scrubbing Bubbles, Vanspace Gd01 Gaming Desk, Amity University Good Or Bad, The Discount Rate Is The Interest Rate That Quizlet, Multi Level Marketing Project Pdf,