[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 does precisely what a unanimous Court refused to do in Trinko —create a new, broader exception to the proposition that there is no duty to deal with competitors. The analysis of Qualcomm’s exclusive dealing is sound and very likely correct. cmaier. Qualcomm is a … Additionally, Judge Koh ordered Qualcomm to negotiate license terms for its SEPs in good faith without the "threat of lack of access" or "discriminatory provisions." 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 for the Northern District of California and vacated the district court’s worldwide, permanent injunction prohibiting several of Qualcomm’s … The district court’s original ruling for the FTC would have stopped Qualcomm immediately, but Bloomberg reports that Judge Lucy Koh’s order was held to give Qualcomm time to appeal. The Court issued an injunction forbidding Qualcomm (i) from conditioning the supply of modem chips on a customer taking out a patent license; and (ii) from entering into exclusive dealing agreements for the supply of modem chips. This leaves intact the panel’s unanimous decision which reversed and vacated the district court ruling in its entirety. 1 The Court concluded that as a result of its licensing practices, Qualcomm is a monopoly, and that its conduct is an "unreasonable restraint of trade" constituting "exclusionary conduct" under the Sherman Act, and therefore the FTC Act. Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Email Print. 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 … FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED. The case FTC v. Qualcomm Inc. dealt with this issue where the United States’ Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued Qualcomm for anti-competitive and monopolistic practices. FTC V. QUALCOMM 9 OPINION CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge: This case asks us to draw the line between anticompetitive behavior, which is illegal under federal antitrust law, and hypercompetitive behavior, which is not. The FTC alleged that these … By Edward S. Whang on December 3, 2020 Posted in Antitrust, Appellate, Telecommunications. The district court ruled in favor of the FTC. Side note: If you would like to know the full background of the case, follow this FTC vs. Qualcomm article series. FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., 935 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. FTC v. Qualcomm, Antitrust, and Intellectual Property. 2021 Cornerstone Research, Bankruptcy and Financial Distress Litigation, Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), Labor, Discrimination, and Algorithmic Bias, Telecommunications, Media, and Entertainment. The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) contends that Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) violated the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. at 757. 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. Kevin Trainer, a law clerk at White & Case, and Samuel Vallejo, a summer associate at White & Case, also contributed to this publication. The FTC also stressed testimony by industry executives, including Apple, Inc. Chief Operating Officer Jeff Williams, who testified that Apple ended up paying a licensing fee five times higher than anticipated after being strong-armed in negotiations with Qualcomm over licensing.1 [6] Based on this evidence, Judge Koh concluded that Qualcomm had wrongfully suppressed competitors in the premium LTE modem chip market to demand unnecessary licensing fees from its customers. On August 11, 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a decision of Judge Koh sitting in the Northern District of California that certain of Qualcomm’s business practices relating to its standards essential patents (SEPs) breached the antitrust laws. 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 … Case No. 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. Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., 3:17-cv-00108 (S.D. Qualcomm-FTC lawsuit: Everything you need to know. Jan 17, 2019. Qualcomm's fight with the FTC ran concurrent with its legal battle with Apple. The dispute in FTC v. Qualcomm centered on the FTC's allegations regarding Qualcomm's "no license, no chips" policy. FTC v Qualcomm does precisely what a unanimous Court refused to do in Trinko—create a new, broader exception to the proposition that there is no duty to deal with competitors. Over 30 years of our mobile invention has led to the Invention Age. [1] Main Opinion, Page 215, Line 19 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. In a suit filed in the Northern District of California in January 2017, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) alleged that Qualcomm’s business practices relating to its licensing of patents and its selling of cellular modem chips were anticompetitive. Coverage of federal case FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., case number 19-16122, from Appellate - 9th Circuit Court. 1 Last month, Apple and Qualcomm resolved their dispute over Qualcomm's same "no license, no chips" strategies at issue in this case. The San … The FTC alleged that Qualcomm abused its dominant position in two modem chip markets by refusing to license its standard essential patents (SEPs) in wireless technology to rival chip manufacturers. Font Size: A A A; A significant federal court decision expands on the relationship between antitrust and intellectual property law. [11] Main Opinion, Page 226, Line 20 FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., 935 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. Automobile makers Ford, Honda, Daimler AG and Tesla, joined by chip makers Intel and MediaTek, called for a rehearing of the FTC case against Qualcomm in what is called an “en banc hearing.” According to the companies, the reversal of the FTC case against Qualcomm by the U.S. Ninth District Court in … Professor Nevo testified to several shortcomings in the FTC’s theory of harm and to several procompetitive justifications for Qualcomm’s practices. 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 -- it was a 3-0 vote. For more about Qualcomm, SEPP, FRAND, Apple, Intel, and the FTC case, registered subscribers can read FTC v. Qualcomm: Who Wins, Who Loses, Apple: In with Qualcomm, Out with Intel, and Qualcomm-Apple Legal Battle Threatens Innovation.