Judge Brewster:

The Federal Circuit has held that unenforceability of a patent due to inequitable conduct before the PTO extends to continuations and reissues of the original patent. See Afga Corp. v. Creo Prods. Inc., 451 F.3d 1366, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Hewlett-Packard, 882 F.2d at 1563; Hoffman-La Roche v. Lemmon Co., 906 F.2d 684, 688 - 89 (Fed. Cir. 1990). While divisions of the original patent may not be unenforceable “where the claims are subsequently separated from those tainted by inequitable conduct . . . and where the issued claims have no relation to the omitted prior art,” Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. McGaw, Inc., 149 F.3d 1321, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1998), by analogizing misconduct before a standards setting body resulting in waiver to misconduct before the PTO resulting in inequitable conduct, this Court finds all claims of the ‘104 and ‘767 patents tainted by Qualcomm’s waiver and that any divisional, continuation, continuation-in-part, or reissue application of either patent would be similarly tainted.

Therefore, under the totality of evidence produced both before and after the jury verdict, by reason of Qualcomm’s intentional and persistent insulation of their directly related IPR from the activities and the analyses of the JVT [standards setting committee] when they were obligated to reveal it, this Court FINDS, pursuant to Rambus, that Qualcomm has waived its rights to enforce the ‘104 and ‘767 patents and their continuations, continuations-in-part, divisions, reissues, or any other derivatives of either patent.

The taint is such that any court's view of Qualcomm may be sour.