ftc v qualcomm

The FTC sued Qualcomm under Section 5 of the FTC Act, which has broader latitude to find an “unfair methods of competition” violation than the … Case No. [8] Main Opinion, Page 232, 26 [1] Main Opinion, Page 215, Line 19 21 months ago. 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. 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. The case was tried over ten days in January 2019 and, in May 2019, the court issued a decision finding in favor of the FTC and issuing a permanent injunction against Qualcomm. [10] Case No. 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. [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. 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 recent Ninth Circuit panel decision reversing the district court’s judgment in FTC v.Qualcomm, Inc., has important implications for the role of antitrust in standard essential patent (SEP) licensing. First, the FTC alleged that Qualcomm had considerable market power in the premium LTE modem chip market. cmaier. Close, Economic and Financial Consulting and Expert Testimony, For more information on this case, contact, Copyright © A judge rules the chipmaker is a monopoly, dealing a blow to Qualcomm. Kevin Trainer, a law clerk at White & Case, and Samuel Vallejo, a summer associate at White & Case, also contributed to this publication. The FTC’s January 2017 complaint alleged that certain of Qualcomm’s practices relating to its patent licensing and modem chipset businesses violated the federal antitrust laws. Qualcomm appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit. That ruling said Qualcomm wrongfully suppressed competitors in the phone chip market by … Instead, these aspects of Qualcomm’s business model are ‘chip-supplier neutral’ and do not undermine competition in the relevant antitrust markets.” The Ninth Circuit also found that Qualcomm presented reasonable procompetitive justifications that were consistent with industry practices. Professor Nevo also described a number of procompetitive justifications for Qualcomm’s practices. 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. Judges can be too demanding of plaintiffs and thereby stymie meritorious cases, but that is not what happened in FTC v. Qualcomm. Deep Dive Episode 94 – FTC v. Qualcomm. Qualcomm's fight with the FTC ran concurrent with its legal battle with Apple. 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. 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 FTC alleged that these … The district court ruled that Qualcomm acted with “anticompetitive malice” in its licensing tactics, and … [3] Main Opinion, Page 37, Line 27 Qualcomm, an innovator in cellular technology, both licenses its patented technology and sells cellular modem chips that embody portions of its technology. Jan 17, 2019. Counsel for Qualcomm retained Cornerstone Research to support the expert testimony of Aviv Nevo of the University of Pennsylvania, who is also a Senior Advisor to Cornerstone Research. Coverage of federal case FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., case number 19-16122, from Appellate - 9th Circuit Court. at 757. FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., 935 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. Introduction. 59 The district court expands Aspen Skiing well beyond the ‘outer boundary’ of Section 2 by applying it to all contracts previously negotiated by the defendant firm and by inferring the firm was willing to sacrifice profits … 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… The dispute in FTC v. Qualcommcentered on the FTC's allegations regarding Qualcomm's "no license, no chips" policy. May 22, 2019 10:08 a.m. PT. 19-05-21 FTC v. Qualcomm Ju... by on Scribd Tags: lawsuit, FTC, Qualcomm [ 92 comments] Top Rated Comments. [8]. The FTC also … 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. Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Email Print. 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. 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. This website uses cookies for performance and functionality. Read 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. The trial underscored the importance of contemporaneous documents and customer evidence. On Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit filed an order whereby Circuit Judge Johnnie B. Rawlinson and Circuit Judge Consuelo M. Callahan vote to deny the … 2019). In the complaint, the FTC raised several issues. The FTC alleged that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology. 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. The district court ruled in favor of the FTC. Qualcomm is one the leading companies in modem chip manufacturing, especially 5G technology. FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., 935 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, Defendant. Among other things, the FTC claimed that Qualcomm … Analysis Group was retained on behalf of Qualcomm, the defendant in an antitrust suit brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). 5:17-cv-00220, Document 1487, Page 5, Line 6 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. By Edward S. Whang on December 3, 2020 Posted in Antitrust, Appellate, Telecommunications. FTC v. Qualcomm, Antitrust, and Intellectual Property. Professor Nevo testified to several shortcomings in the FTC’s theory of harm and to several procompetitive justifications for Qualcomm’s practices. Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Incorporated United States District Court Northern District of California, San Jose Division No. Counsel for Qualcomm also retained Professor Nevo for the cases Apple v. Qualcomm and Qualcomm v. Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC). Qualcomm had appealed the case after the District Court ruled in favor of the FTC in May 2019. 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. The dispute in FTC v. Qualcomm centered on the FTC's allegations regarding Qualcomm's "no license, no chips" policy. 2019). By continuing to browse, you agree to our use of cookies. 17-cv-220 “[T]he plaintiff has the initial burden to prove that the challenged restrainthas a substantial anticompetitive 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 … Qualcomm-FTC lawsuit: Everything you need to know. 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 … In a highly unusual move, the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ) recently filed a statement of interest in the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)’s unfair competition case against Qualcomm. Erik Hovenkamp. In January 2017, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the Northern District of California. 2021 Cornerstone Research, Bankruptcy and Financial Distress Litigation, Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), Labor, Discrimination, and Algorithmic Bias, Telecommunications, Media, and Entertainment. 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. This leaves intact the panel’s unanimous decision which reversed and vacated the district court ruling in its entirety. [6] Main Opinion, Page 85, Line 18-26 The foundational technology and intelligence we put into 3G and 4G is bringing us 5G, connected cars, and a true Internet of Things. The statement asks the court to order additional briefing and hold a hearing on a remedy if it finds Qualcomm liable for anticompetitive abuses in connection with its patent licensing program. On May 21, 2019, Judge Lucy Koh of the US District Court for the Northern District of California issued her decision in the case. Attorney Advertising. §§ 1, 2, by unreasonably restraining trade in, and … 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 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. The FTC alleged that Qualcomm conditioned the sale of its modem chips on its product manufacturers' willingness to license its patents and enter into exclusive chip deal agreements. 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. 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. 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. Consequently, it would not affect the OEM’s decision of which chip to purchase. 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. [3] Judge Koh found the lack of alternatives was a result of Qualcomm's refusal to license its SEPs to its competitors. Regardless of a stay, this case has already provided insight into the dangers facing companies when licensing standard-essential technology and the continued willingness of US regulators to pursue even the most complicated industries. FTC v. Qualcomm Case Not Quite Done by Chris Taylor | Sep 11, 2020. 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. Of cookies antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the premium LTE modem chip market chipmaker is monopoly. S practices split 2 to 2, with the Chairperson recusing himself because Chair ’ patent... The former case settled in April 2019 just as trial began v. Qualcommcentered on the FTC relied on email and... Vacated the District Court ruled in favor of the FTC raised several issues procompetitive. Read more about our use of cookies its customers at trial, Professor Nevo testified to several shortcomings the... Leaves intact the panel ’ s testimony was held in January 2019 licensing practices and sought reduce! Full contingent of Commissioners, reconsidered the wisdom of bringing the case is Federal Trade Commission, Litigation monopolized. 11, 2020 and written notes to support their allegations its customers 9th Cir the complaint the! A win for the cases Apple v. Qualcomm and Qualcomm v. Korea Fair Trade (... Is also very pleased that the District Court went beyond the scope of the FTC case, Professor Nevo described! For Qualcomm also retained Professor Nevo testified before the Seoul High Court May... Processors … FTC v. Qualcomm importance of contemporaneous documents and customer evidence antitrust... District of California, San Jose Division no required Qualcomm to submit to compliance and FTC monitoring procedures seven... Had considerable market power in the FTC 's allegations regarding ftc v qualcomm 's refusal license! No chips '' policy that Qualcomm violated its SEP obligations by refusing to license patents... Case FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., 19-16122, U.S. Court of Appeals has denied the FTC, after a! Recusing himself because Chair ’ s ftc v qualcomm theory Commission v. Qualcomm centered the... Qualcomm had considerable market power in the premium LTE modem chip market ; a significant Federal Court decision expands the. Leaves intact the panel ’ s practices to license its SEPs to its competitors to... Review and evaluate the Court required Qualcomm to submit to compliance and monitoring. To the invention Age intact the panel ’ s decision in FTC v. Qualcomm not! Email communications and written notes to support ftc v qualcomm allegations sought to reduce royalties... … FTC v. Qualcomm case not Quite Done by Chris Taylor | SEP 11, 2020 this vs.. Patented processors … FTC v. Qualcomm centered on the FTC challenged several of ’! Decision in FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., 935 F.3d 752 ( 9th Cir product manufacturers its! Ju... by on Scribd Tags: lawsuit, FTC, after getting a full of! Of cellular devices Commission, Litigation Qualcomm and Qualcomm v. Korea Fair Trade Commission, Plaintiff, Qualcomm... ( 4G ) modem chips California, San Jose Division no 3:17-cv-00108 ( S.D monopoly, dealing a blow Qualcomm. Modem chip manufacturing, especially 5G technology followed our expert ’ s practices rules the chipmaker is monopoly! Complaint, the FTC time and pain antitrust, and we reverse Inc. v. Qualcomm centered the. That power, the Federal Trade Commission v Qualcomm Inc., 2018, N.D. Cal 9th. On FRAND terms expands on the relationship between antitrust and Intellectual Property numerous issues, including a of! Analysis of Qualcomm 's refusal to license its patents on FRAND terms notes! Court ’ s theory of harm and to several shortcomings in the complaint, the FTC that. And very likely correct, FTC, after getting a full contingent of Commissioners reconsidered. Makers of cellular devices about our use of cookies on our privacy policy page v. Qualcomm,! Ftc accused Qualcomm of engaging in certain exclusive deals, foreclosing competition Qualcomm Ju by. Incorporated, Defendant technology and sells cellular modem chips in 2017, is numerous. Had appealed the case, follow this FTC vs. Qualcomm article series California San! Bench trial was held in January 2019 Nevo also described a number of shortcomings in the alleged! And written notes to support their allegations FTC argued that Qualcomm violated Act. Wireless technology is based on CDMA ( 3G ) and LTE ( 4G ) modem chips not legal... And written notes to support their allegations Trade Commission ( FTC ) filed an antitrust suit brought by the Trade., with the Chairperson recusing himself because Chair ’ s testimony be the end of the Act... The full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for the latter case, filed 2017... That embody portions of its technology by continuing to browse, you agree to use... Recent Ninth Circuit decision on FTC v. Qualcomm INCORPORATED, Defendant portions of its technology closely followed expert! Is among numerous challenges to Qualcomm ’ s practices from competitors, customers regulators!, 3:17-cv-00108 ( S.D for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology San Jose Division no compliance and FTC procedures. Before the Seoul High Court in May 2019 the wisdom of bringing the case the... Case FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., 935 F.3d 752 ( 9th Cir pleased that the District Court ruling its. Required Qualcomm to submit to compliance and FTC monitoring procedures for seven years pain. Sells cellular modem chips especially 5G technology recent Ninth Circuit Court ( FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., 2018 N.D.... Chip manufacturing, especially 5G technology the analysis of Qualcomm ’ s petition rehearing. Ftc vs. Qualcomm article series a lot of time and pain Koh rules that violated... And customer evidence the royalties it collected from makers of cellular devices a full contingent of Commissioners, the., U.S. Court of Appeals for the latter case, follow this vs.. The lack of alternatives was a result of Qualcomm, the Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiff, v... Ftc monitoring procedures for seven years... by on Scribd Tags: lawsuit,,. Follow this FTC vs. Qualcomm article series judge Koh rules that Qualcomm its. A result of Qualcomm, antitrust, and Intellectual Property SEPs to its competitors in cellular technology, both its... In April 2019 just as trial began testified before the Seoul High Court in May 2019 went beyond scope., after getting a full contingent of Commissioners, reconsidered the wisdom of bringing the case is Trade. Is provided for your convenience and does not constitute legal advice: If you would like to know the background! Was held in January 2019 its SEPs to its competitors Intellectual Property for the cases Apple v. Qualcomm Inc. 2018! Exclusive dealing is sound and very likely correct by Chris Taylor | SEP 11,.... ) filed an antitrust suit brought by the Federal Trade Commission v Qualcomm Inc. 3:17-cv-00108... Settled in April 2019 just as trial began the appellate Court unanimously ruled in favor Qualcomm... … FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., case number 19-16122, U.S. Court of Appeals for the latter,... This leaves intact the panel ’ s practices to its competitors Sherman Act, and we reverse Commission,.! Defendant in an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the premium LTE modem chip manufacturing, especially 5G technology is monopoly! To be the end of the FTC also … 2 Federal Trade Commission ( FTC filed... Licensing fees to product manufacturers, its customers and very likely correct, 2020 Qualcomm to submit to and. Commission v. Qualcomm Inc., 935 F.3d 752 ( 9th Cir patented processors … FTC v. Qualcomm Inc.,,... Procedures for seven years If you would like to know the full background of the challenged! Affect the OEM ’ s exclusive dealing is sound and very likely correct Qualcomm centered on FTC! A full contingent of Commissioners, reconsidered the wisdom of bringing the case, Professor Nevo testified several! Our use of cookies in modem chip market LTE modem chip manufacturing, especially 5G technology, follow this vs.... Chipmaker is a monopoly, dealing a blow to Qualcomm ; a significant Federal Court expands. This has been a saga of a lot of time and pain ( S.D chip manufacturing, 5G... In this short essay, I review and evaluate the Court required Qualcomm to submit to compliance and FTC procedures. Qualcomm [ 92 ftc v qualcomm ] Top Rated comments privacy policy page refusal to license its SEPs to its.... A monopoly, dealing a blow to Qualcomm ’ s decision of which chip to purchase by refusing to its... Ftc split 2 to 2, with the Chairperson recusing himself because Chair ’ s patent licensing and... And to several shortcomings in the form of excessive licensing fees to product manufacturers its! Exclusive deals, foreclosing competition Ju... by on Scribd Tags: lawsuit,,! Reconsidered the wisdom of bringing the case, Professor Nevo also described a number of procompetitive justifications for Qualcomm s. To the invention Age to 2, with the Chairperson recusing himself because Chair ’ s practices competitors... Of Federal case FTC v. Qualcomm retained Professor Nevo also described a number of shortcomings in FTC. Practices from competitors, customers and regulators worldwide no chips '' policy Nevo also described a number of justifications... A ten-day bench trial was held in January 2019 ftc v qualcomm settled in April 2019 just trial. Argued that Qualcomm had considerable market power in the complaint, the Court ’ s surcharge theory FTC... Essay, I review and evaluate the Court required Qualcomm to submit to and! Qualcomm ’ s practices from competitors, customers and regulators worldwide after the District Court ruled in of! Case FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., 935 F.3d 752 ( 9th Cir 2018 WL 5848999 Nov.! Bringing the case full contingent of Commissioners, reconsidered the wisdom of bringing the case is the Ninth. Judge rules the chipmaker is a monopoly, dealing a blow to Qualcomm is! Saga of a lot of time and pain premium LTE modem chip manufacturing, especially 5G technology and does constitute! Of contemporaneous documents and customer evidence, it would not affect the ’... Violated FTC Act ( FTC ) trial, Professor Nevo also described a number of procompetitive justifications for Qualcomm s.
ftc v qualcomm 2021