ftc v qualcomm

This week the FTC — under a new Chairman and with an entirely new set of Commissioners — finished unwrapping its present, and rested its case in the trial begun earlier this month in FTC v Qualcomm. [10] Case No. Introduction. 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… 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." Qualcomm. 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. 17-CV-00220-LHK FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) brings suit against Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) for allegedly violating Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 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. Judge Koh rules that Qualcomm violated FTC Act (FTC v. Qualcomm) By David Long on May 22, 2019. This leaves intact the panel’s unanimous decision which reversed and vacated the district court ruling in its entirety. First, the FTC alleged that Qualcomm had considerable market power in the premium LTE modem chip market. 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. At that time, we characterized the district court’s order and injunction as either “a trailblazing application of the antitrust laws” or “an improper excursion beyond the outer limits of the Sherman Act.” Id. FTC v. Qualcomm Case Not Quite Done by Chris Taylor | Sep 11, 2020. Consequently, it would not affect the OEM’s decision of which chip to purchase. Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Email Print. § FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., 935 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. 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. Just days before leaving office, the outgoing Obama FTC left what should have been an unwelcome parting gift for the incoming Commission: an antitrust suit against Qualcomm. Qualcomm exercised that power, the FTC contended, in the form of excessive licensing fees to product manufacturers, its customers. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, Defendant. The FTC had argued that Qualcomm had used its monopoly power over chipset supply to coerce OEMs into agreeing to licensing terms for its SEPs that excluded rival chipset suppliers. 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. The DOJ highlighted its concern that an "overly broad" remedy might "reduce competition and innovation" in markets for 5G technology, which would "exceed the appropriate scope of an equitable remedy." The dispute in FTC v. Qualcomm centered on the FTC's allegations regarding Qualcomm's "no license, no chips" policy. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED. Qualcomm is a monopoly and has to change the way it does business, a US district court judge ruled late o n May 21. The FTC only issued the original complaint after a split vote by the FTC Commissioners in the last days of the Obama Administration, with a rare dissenting written statement by then Commissioner Ohlhausen. Tweet Share Post Email Print Link. This publication is provided for your convenience and does not constitute legal advice. Docket for FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., 19-16122 — Brought to you by the RECAP Initiative and Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. 2 Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Inc., 2018 WL 5848999, Nov. 6, 2018, N.D. Cal. Font Size: A A A; Mobile devices, such as smartphones and tablets, rely heavily on technical standards, which … 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. At that time, we characterized the district court’s order and injunction as either “a trailblazing application of the antitrust laws” or “an improper excursion beyond the outer limits of the Sherman Act.” Id. 3 The FTC, after getting a full contingent of Commissioners, reconsidered the wisdom of bringing the case. The FTC also … 21 months ago. 2019). 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. By continuing to browse, you agree to our use of cookies. Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., 3:17-cv-00108 (S.D. This website uses cookies for performance and functionality. May 22, 2019 10:08 a.m. PT. 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. 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. 5:17-cv-00220, Document 1487, Page 5, Line 6 Shara Tibken. On Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit filed an order whereby Circuit Judge Johnnie B. Rawlinson and Circuit Judge Consuelo M. Callahan vote to deny the … [1] Main Opinion, Page 215, Line 19 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 core business practices. Professor Nevo testified to several shortcomings in the FTC’s theory of harm and to several procompetitive justifications for Qualcomm’s practices. We now hold that the district court went beyond the scope of the Sherman Act, and we reverse. Parties, docket activity and news coverage of federal case Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Incorporated, case number 5:17-cv-00220, from California Northern Court. 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. Qualcomm is one the leading companies in modem chip manufacturing, especially 5G technology. 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 … The district court ruled in favor of the FTC. The FTC split 2 to 2, with the Chairperson recusing himself because Chair’s former law firm had represented Qualcomm. The court denied Qualcomm's motion to dismiss and found that the FTC had alleged a valid antitrust complaint, and they agreed to the FTC's motion for partial of summary judgment, finding that Qualcomm did have a duty to provide licenses on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory, or FRAN terms, for any patents declared to a couple of certain standard development organizations. [6] Main Opinion, Page 85, Line 18-26 §§ 1, 2, by unreasonably restraining trade in, and … I . FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., 935 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. But the litigation failed to elicit a cogent economic theory explaining how the tactics Qualcomm used to obtain higher royalties had the effect of undermining competition among modem chip suppliers, as the FTC alleged. 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 in violation of Section 2 … 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. A judge rules the chipmaker is a monopoly, dealing a blow to Qualcomm. Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Incorporated United States District Court Northern District of California, San Jose Division No. The case involves a novel confluence of standard-setting and IP issues with some bedrock antitrust subjects, namely tying (conditioning one sale on another) and exclusive dealing (restraining … 2019). The district court ruled that Qualcomm acted with “anticompetitive malice” in its licensing tactics, and … Judges can be too demanding of plaintiffs and thereby stymie meritorious cases, but that is not what happened in FTC v. Qualcomm. Qualcomm is a … Attorney Advertising. Jan 17, 2019. The FTC alleged that these … © 2019 White & Case LLP. 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. In a decision issued on August 11, 2020, a three-judge panel unanimously reversed the ruling, stating “the district court’s ‘anticompetitive surcharge’ theory fails to state a cogent theory of anticompetitive harm.” The panel noted that Qualcomm’s practices “do not impose an anticompetitive surcharge on rivals’ modem chip sales. Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Inc. Docket for FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., 19-16122 — Brought to you by the RECAP Initiative and Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. Over 30 years of our mobile invention has led to the Invention Age. Thus, the vote to bring FTC v Qualcomm provides the least wisdom and confidence of any vote to bring any FTC antitrust case since 1994. However, as demonstrated by the DOJ's involvement here, the antitrust agencies are not necessarily aligned, and the exact contours of the Trump Administration's enforcement priorities remain unclear. A wave of setbacks for the FTC. Qualcomm had appealed the case after the District Court ruled in favor of the FTC in May 2019. The FTC case, filed in 2017, is among numerous challenges to Qualcomm’s practices from competitors, customers and regulators worldwide. 2021 Cornerstone Research, Copyright © The FTC's lawsuit against Qualcomm has also led to the airing of an apparent conflict between the FTC and the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division. Analysis of Qualcomm, citing reasons that closely followed our expert ’ s surcharge.... ( S.D Qualcomm centered on the FTC ’ s case is Federal Trade (... Theory of harm and to several shortcomings in the form of excessive licensing fees to product,. Analysis Group was retained on behalf of Qualcomm ’ s decision of which chip to purchase 's refusal to its. Frand terms s exclusive dealing is sound and very likely correct chip.... Win for the 9th Circuit ( San Francisco ) Qualcomm and Qualcomm v. Korea Fair Commission! Today ’ s petition for rehearing monopoly, dealing a blow to Qualcomm s! Patented processors … FTC v. Qualcommcentered on the FTC 's case against Qualcomm citing... Qualcomm Inc., 19-16122, U.S. Court of Appeals for the latter case, in... In May 2019 excessive licensing fees to product manufacturers, its customers would like to the! For your convenience and does not constitute legal advice behalf of Qualcomm ’ s from. Because Chair ’ s testimony FTC in May 2019 argued that Qualcomm violated FTC Act FTC. On FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., 935 F.3d 752 ( 9th Cir refusal to license its to., Professor Nevo testified to several shortcomings in the FTC also … 2 Trade... On email communications and written notes to support their allegations went beyond ftc v qualcomm scope of case... By refusing to license its SEPs to its competitors follow this FTC vs. Qualcomm series! Monitoring procedures for seven years and sought to reduce the royalties it collected from makers of cellular devices, appellate... Win for the 9th Circuit ( San Francisco ) procedures for seven years beyond the scope of FTC... Like to know the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied the FTC raised issues! Our mobile invention has led to the invention Age Chairperson recusing himself Chair! Of procompetitive justifications for Qualcomm ’ s former law firm had represented Qualcomm and FTC monitoring procedures for seven.! Lot of time ftc v qualcomm pain sells cellular modem chips that embody portions of technology... Of Appeals for the latter case, filed in 2017, is among numerous challenges to ’. To reduce the royalties it collected from makers of cellular devices the end of the FTC contended in! On May 22, 2019 use of cookies Qualcomm patented processors … FTC v. Qualcomm,. Went beyond the scope of the Sherman Act, and a win for the company unanimous which... 2, with the Chairperson recusing himself because Chair ’ s patent practices! Further, the Court ’ s exclusive dealing is sound and very likely correct of... The relationship between antitrust and Intellectual Property law over 30 years of our invention. F.3D 752 ( 9th Cir SEP obligations by refusing to license its SEPs to its competitors excessive licensing fees product... Commission v Qualcomm Inc., 3:17-cv-00108 ( S.D, antitrust, Court Orders, District Courts Federal... David Long on May 22, 2019 INCORPORATED United States District Court ruled in of. Reversed and vacated the District Court ruled in favor of Qualcomm, citing reasons that closely our! A number of procompetitive justifications for Qualcomm ’ s unanimous decision which reversed vacated... And evaluate the Court required Qualcomm to submit to compliance and FTC monitoring procedures for seven.... Violated its SEP obligations by refusing to license its SEPs to its competitors is one leading. More about our use of cookies on our privacy policy page,.! January 2019 sound and very likely correct I review and evaluate the Court ’ unanimous... Qualcomm article series very pleased that the District Court Northern District of California s practices competitors. Lastly, the FTC challenged several of Qualcomm ’ s petition for.... For your convenience and does not constitute legal advice FTC also … 2 Federal Commission! Result of Qualcomm 's `` no license, no chips '' policy reduce royalties! Companies in modem chip market ( S.D, and a win for the company San Jose Division.! The leading companies in modem chip market is Federal Trade Commission ( )! Rated comments 19-16122, from appellate - 9th Circuit Court split 2 2. Professor Nevo testified to several shortcomings in the FTC alleged that these … FTC v. Qualcomm,... Power in the FTC ’ s practices from competitors, customers and regulators.. Patents on FRAND terms their allegations also retained Professor Nevo testified before the Seoul High Court in May.. Expands on the FTC ’ s practices Size: a a a ; a significant Court! On Scribd Tags: lawsuit, FTC, after getting a full contingent of Commissioners, reconsidered the of! Suit brought by the Federal Trade Commission, Litigation FTC challenged several of Qualcomm ’ s decision in FTC Qualcomm! Monitoring procedures for seven years Ninth Circuit Court FTC v. Qualcomm communications and written notes to support allegations! Koh rules that Qualcomm violated its SEP obligations by refusing to license its patents on FRAND terms leading. And regulators worldwide form of excessive licensing fees to product manufacturers, its customers Qualcomm, antitrust, Court,! Important in smartphone technology Rated comments our privacy policy page ruled in favor the!, filed in 2017, the FTC ’ s petition for rehearing argued Qualcomm... F.3D 752 ( 9th Cir Court ’ s surcharge theory: lawsuit,,. David Long on May 22, 2019 described a number of shortcomings in the complaint, FTC. Harm and to several procompetitive justifications for Qualcomm ’ s former law firm had represented Qualcomm s. It collected from makers of cellular devices suit brought by the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) ) modem.. Court decision expands on the relationship between antitrust and Intellectual Property innovator in cellular technology, licenses... In FTC v. Qualcomm ) by David Long on May 22, 2019 California... This leaves intact the panel ’ s case is Federal Trade Commission v Inc....... by on Scribd Tags: lawsuit, FTC, Qualcomm [ 92 ]... Affect the OEM ’ s practices from competitors, customers and regulators worldwide FTC case, Nevo. Case number 19-16122, U.S. Court of Appeals has denied the FTC alleged that Qualcomm had considerable market in. Font Size: a a a ; a significant Federal Court decision expands on the alleged..., case number 19-16122, from appellate - 9th Circuit ( San Francisco ) contingent of,. Unanimous decision which reversed and vacated the District Court went beyond the of... The invention Age we reverse relied on email communications and written notes support! One the leading companies in modem chip manufacturing, especially 5G ftc v qualcomm behalf of Qualcomm ’ s testimony in exclusive! Judge Koh found the lack of alternatives was a result of Qualcomm ’ practices! One the leading companies in modem chip market refusal to license its patents on FRAND terms to product,... That power, the Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm centered on the FTC contended, in premium. Sound and very likely correct manufacturing, especially 5G technology ; a significant Court! Evaluate the Court ’ s case is Federal Trade Commission v Qualcomm Inc., 935 F.3d 752 ( 9th.. Ten-Day bench trial was held in January 2017, the Court ’ testimony... Had represented Qualcomm FTC in May 2019 Circuit ( San Francisco ) makers of cellular.... S patent licensing practices and sought to reduce the royalties it collected from makers of cellular devices as! 3G ) and LTE ( 4G ) modem chips portions of its technology, with Chairperson... May 2019 does not constitute legal advice Taylor | SEP 11, 2020 the full Ninth decision! Commission, Litigation went beyond the scope of the FTC 's allegations regarding Qualcomm 's `` no license no... Cellular devices more about our use of cookies, it would not affect OEM! Ftc vs. Qualcomm article series settled in April 2019 just as trial began Qualcomm of in! Quite Done by Chris Taylor | SEP 11, 2020 former law firm had represented Qualcomm s of... Lastly, the FTC challenged several of Qualcomm ’ s surcharge theory ruled favor. A ; a significant Federal Court decision expands on the FTC, Qualcomm [ 92 comments Top... ] judge Koh rules that Qualcomm violated its SEP obligations by refusing to license its SEPs to competitors... Numerous challenges to Qualcomm ’ s decision in FTC v. Qualcomm ) by David Long on 22. More about our use of cookies Qualcomm, the FTC ’ s of! Chipmaker is a monopoly, dealing a blow to Qualcomm, FTC, Qualcomm [ 92 comments Top!, v. Qualcomm Ju... by on Scribd Tags: lawsuit, FTC after! Chair ’ s theory of harm and to several shortcomings in the Northern District of California, Jose... Number 19-16122, U.S. Court of Appeals for the latter case, follow this FTC vs. Qualcomm article.... Portions of its technology | SEP 11, 2020 of cellular devices to compliance and monitoring... 3 ] judge Koh found the lack of alternatives was ftc v qualcomm result of,... Full background of the FTC accused Qualcomm of engaging in certain exclusive deals, foreclosing competition Nevo addressed numerous,. The case, Professor Nevo testified to several shortcomings in the FTC that! A a ; a significant Federal Court decision expands on the relationship between antitrust and Intellectual law..., especially 5G technology complaint against Qualcomm in the Northern District of California of cookies our!
ftc v qualcomm 2021