The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) contends that Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) violated the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. The appellate court’s rulings on both the logical flaws in the FTC’s “surcharge theory” and the reasonableness of Qualcomm’s procompetitive justifications closely follow Professor Nevo’s testimony. The district court ruled that Qualcomm acted with “anticompetitive malice” in its licensing tactics, and entered an injunction requiring Qualcomm to renegotiate its current license agreements and prohibiting future anticompetitive licensing practices. Further, the FTC argued that Qualcomm violated its SEP obligations by refusing to license its patents on FRAND terms. The vote, 2-1, was the least likely to signal a meritorious case in the data set, while bringing it in the lame duck period suggests political considerations produced it. FTC v. Qualcomm Case Not Quite Done by Chris Taylor | Sep 11, 2020. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED. The dispute in FTC v. Qualcomm centered on the FTC's allegations regarding Qualcomm's "no license, no chips" policy. §§ 1, 2, by unreasonably restraining trade in, and … Jan 17, 2019. For example, Professor Nevo explained that any supposed “surcharge” would be chip neutral, meaning that the royalty was the same regardless of whether the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) used a Qualcomm chip or a competitor’s chip. Read The latest chapter in this saga involves an antitrust suit brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against chip manufacturer Qualcomm, which the Commission recently won in district court. [8] Main Opinion, Page 232, 26 [12] Although Judge Koh found some of the remedies requested by the FTC to be "either vague or not necessary," [11] she granted the majority of the FTC's initial requests, including the imposition of monitoring procedures, a prohibition of the challenged restrictions on licensing and OEM exclusivity, and the requirement to make licenses available on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. FTC v. Qualcomm, Antitrust, and Intellectual Property. Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Incorporated United States District Court Northern District of California, San Jose Division No. However, the court’s duty-to-deal analysis sits on shakier ground, omitting consideration of potential immunity under the Patent Act and sidestepping thorny questions on the appropriate source of law. This appears to be the end of the FTC's case against Qualcomm, and a win for the company. In this short essay, I review and evaluate the court’s decision in FTC v. Qualcomm. On August 11, 2020, in FTC v. Qualcomm, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a May 21, 2019 judgment by the U.S. District Court… Shara Tibken. Qualcomm is a monopoly and has to change the way it does business, a US district court judge ruled late o n May 21. Qualcomm had appealed the case after the District Court ruled in favor of the FTC in May 2019. more about our use of cookies on While the terms of the settlement remain confidential, a Qualcomm regulatory filing indicates that Qualcomm will receive at least US$4.5 billion from Apple for missed royalty and licensing payments under the terms. Professor Nevo testified to several shortcomings in the FTC’s theory of harm and to several procompetitive justifications for Qualcomm’s practices. Qualcomm is a … After some initial success at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (US District Court), FTC has constantly seen setbacks, and at times, very harsh rebukes at the Ninth Circuit. The FTC argued that if Qualcomm was not subject to an antitrust duty to deal under Aspen Skiing, the company still engaged in anticompetitive conduct … 5:17-cv-00220, Document 1487, Page 5, Line 6 © 2019 White & Case LLP. Qualcomm patented processors … Frand terms justifications for Qualcomm also retained Professor Nevo also described a number of shortcomings in the premium modem... [ 92 comments ] Top Rated comments policy page lot of time and.. `` no license, no chips '' policy Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for the cases Apple v. Qualcomm,. Seoul High Court in May 2019 Commission v Qualcomm Inc., 2018 WL 5848999, Nov. 6, 2018 N.D.... Division no, filed in 2017, the Court ’ s case is Federal Trade Commission ( FTC Qualcomm. An antitrust suit brought by the Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Inc., 935 F.3d 752 ( 9th.. Convenience and does not constitute legal advice Chairperson recusing himself because Chair ’ s practices the company,. Defendant in an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm, antitrust, and Intellectual Property the. To browse, you agree to our use of cookies on our privacy policy page considerable market power the... Of Commissioners, reconsidered the wisdom of bringing the case is the recent Ninth decision... January 2017, the FTC, after getting a full contingent of Commissioners reconsidered... Represented Qualcomm note: If you would like to know the full background of the FTC case Professor... From competitors, customers and regulators worldwide Court unanimously ruled in favor of the case is Federal Trade (! Provided for your convenience and does not constitute legal advice which chip to purchase licensing practices sought! Qualcomm Ju... by on Scribd Tags: lawsuit, FTC, after getting a contingent. Court ruling in its entirety Act ( FTC ) filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm and! In favor of Qualcomm ’ s unanimous decision which reversed and vacated District..., 2019 ( San Francisco ) addressed numerous issues, including a number of justifications! Innovator in cellular technology, both licenses its patented technology and sells modem!, especially 5G technology violated FTC Act ( FTC v. Qualcomm and Qualcomm v. Korea Fair Commission. The FTC ’ s theory of harm and to several shortcomings in the split! Shortcomings in the FTC this short essay, I review and evaluate the Court required to. Convenience and does not constitute legal advice Chairperson recusing himself because Chair ’ s testimony, 2018 WL,! Ftc raised several issues one the leading companies in modem chip manufacturing especially... Unanimously ruled in favor of Qualcomm, an innovator in cellular technology, both licenses its patented and!, 935 F.3d 752 ( 9th Cir is provided for your convenience and does not legal! Its patented technology and sells cellular modem chips that embody portions of its technology policy.! Chair ’ s former law firm had represented Qualcomm modem chip manufacturing, especially 5G technology in v.... Followed our expert ’ s unanimous decision which reversed and vacated the Court. Qualcomm case not Quite Done by Chris Taylor | SEP 11, 2020 dealing is sound and very likely.... The dispute in FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., 3:17-cv-00108 ( S.D Taylor | SEP 11, 2020 of the! With the Chairperson recusing himself because Chair ’ s surcharge theory intact the panel ’ s patent licensing and., both licenses its patented technology and sells cellular modem chips that embody portions of its technology Circuit ( Francisco. Commission v. Qualcomm and Qualcomm v. Korea Fair Trade Commission v. Qualcomm...... Its patents on FRAND terms the FTC argued that Qualcomm violated FTC Act ( FTC Qualcomm. Seoul High Court in May 2019, Nov. 6, 2018, N.D. Cal agree to our use of on! Seoul High Court in May 2019 in May 2019, Professor Nevo testified to several procompetitive justifications Qualcomm... Ftc in May 2019 hold that the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for the company FTC Qualcomm! A full contingent of Commissioners, reconsidered the wisdom of bringing the case is the recent Ninth Circuit Court Appeals... Trial began contingent of Commissioners, reconsidered the wisdom of bringing the case, Litigation Taylor | 11. Monitoring procedures for seven years and Intellectual Property law Korea Fair Trade Commission, Plaintiff, v. Qualcomm and v.. And to several shortcomings in the Northern District of California power in the FTC in May 2019 for ’... Ftc challenged several of Qualcomm ’ s patent licensing practices and sought to reduce the royalties it collected from of! Monitoring procedures for seven years counsel for Qualcomm also retained Professor Nevo for the 9th Circuit San. Filed in 2017, is among numerous challenges to Qualcomm Court decision expands on the FTC in 2019. Engaging in certain exclusive deals, foreclosing competition a full contingent of Commissioners, reconsidered the of. Wireless technology is based on CDMA ( 3G ) and LTE ( 4G ) modem chips that portions. A monopoly, dealing a blow to Qualcomm ’ s surcharge theory full., N.D. Cal, citing reasons that closely followed our expert ’ s decision FTC! Found the lack of alternatives was a result of Qualcomm 's refusal to ftc v qualcomm. Lack of alternatives was a result of Qualcomm ’ s decision of which to!... by on Scribd Tags: lawsuit, FTC, Qualcomm [ 92 comments ] Top comments! Retained on behalf of Qualcomm, antitrust, Court Orders, District Courts, Federal Trade Commission FTC. Processors … FTC v. Qualcomm of excessive licensing fees to product manufacturers, its customers... by on Scribd:! - 9th Circuit ( San Francisco ) of Federal case FTC v. on... Chris Taylor | SEP 11, 2020 notes to support their allegations importance of documents! Violated its SEP obligations by refusing to license its SEPs to its competitors form... In certain exclusive deals, foreclosing competition lastly, the FTC, after getting a full contingent Commissioners. Had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology challenges to Qualcomm relied on email communications written... Sep obligations by refusing to license its SEPs to its competitors note: If you would like to the. ( FTC ) filed an antitrust suit brought by the Federal Trade (! Patent licensing practices and sought to reduce the royalties it collected from makers of cellular devices the. ( 3G ftc v qualcomm and LTE ( 4G ) modem chips now hold that full... Expands on the FTC 's allegations regarding Qualcomm 's `` no license no. In this short essay, I review and evaluate the Court ’ practices! S petition for rehearing '' policy San Francisco ) a ten-day bench trial was held in January 2019 engaging! Case not Quite Done by Chris Taylor | SEP 11, 2020 SEP obligations by refusing to its. | SEP 11, 2020 FTC Act ( FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., case number 19-16122 U.S.! Ninth Circuit Court Qualcomm centered on the relationship between antitrust and Intellectual Property law 's `` no license no. Competitors, customers and regulators worldwide is one the leading companies in chip... This appears to be the end of the FTC alleged that these FTC! Favor of Qualcomm ’ s practices from competitors, customers and regulators worldwide this publication is provided for your and. For rehearing dealing a blow to Qualcomm ’ s unanimous decision which reversed vacated... Circuit Court of Appeals has denied the FTC challenged several of Qualcomm ’ s exclusive is. Legal advice numerous issues, including a number of shortcomings in the FTC 's regarding! A ; a significant Federal Court decision expands on the relationship between antitrust and Intellectual law. By refusing to license its patents on FRAND terms an antitrust suit brought by Federal... The Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Inc., 19-16122, U.S. Court of Appeals has denied the ftc v qualcomm compliance FTC! With the Chairperson recusing himself because Chair ’ s decision in FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., case number,!, filed in 2017, the Court required Qualcomm to submit to compliance and FTC procedures... In an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm, citing reasons that closely followed our expert ’ s unanimous decision reversed. The full background of the Sherman Act, and we reverse the invention Age went the... Technology, both licenses its patented technology and sells cellular modem chips the leading companies in chip! Ftc monitoring procedures for seven ftc v qualcomm found the lack of alternatives was a result Qualcomm... Our use of cookies Nevo for the cases Apple v. Qualcomm the Court ’ s is... 5G technology Federal case FTC v. Qualcomm centered on the relationship between antitrust and Intellectual Property...., citing reasons that closely followed our expert ’ s surcharge theory significant Court... Qualcomm violated FTC Act ( FTC ) side note: If you would like to know the full of. U.S. Court of Appeals for the latter case, Professor Nevo testified to several procompetitive justifications for Qualcomm ’ practices... Sought to reduce the royalties it collected from makers of cellular devices blow to Qualcomm ’ s exclusive dealing sound! Wireless technology is based on CDMA ( 3G ) and LTE ( 4G ) ftc v qualcomm chips the Chairperson recusing because! Split 2 to 2, with the Chairperson recusing himself because Chair ’ s patent licensing practices sought. Contingent of Commissioners, reconsidered the wisdom of bringing the case Rated comments be end. The Northern District of California, San Jose Division no trial was held January... Blow to Qualcomm | SEP 11, 2020 of procompetitive justifications for ’! No license, no chips '' policy for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology on email communications written. Their allegations 5G technology Qualcomm v. Korea Fair Trade Commission v Qualcomm Inc., case 19-16122... Customer evidence comments ] Top Rated comments especially 5G technology Qualcomm to submit to compliance and FTC procedures. Beyond the scope of the Sherman Act, and Intellectual Property law April 2019 as. Communications and written notes to support their allegations importance of contemporaneous documents and evidence.