of Ninth Circuit opinions. The panel of judges probed the FTC on how Qualcomm may have violated antitrust laws, even if the company did use its dominant position in the chip market to gain higher patent royalties. The FTC alleged that Qualcomm violated the Sherman Act by unreasonably restraining trade in, and unlawfully monopolizing, the code division multiple access (CDMA) and premium long-term evolution (LTE) cellular modem chip markets. FTC v. Qualcomm … 1. The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) contends that Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) violated the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. In January 2017, the FTC filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the Northern District of California. 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 … This article discusses the impact of a recent decision on by Judge Koh in the Northern District of California, on FTC v.Qualcomm Inc., No. The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment in an antitrust action against Qualcomm, and reversed the district court's permanent, worldwide injunction prohibiting several of Qualcomm's core business practices. 2020), is the most consequential government monopolization case since Microsoft. FTC v. Qualcomm: Trial and Possible Implications By Jay Jurata (Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe) 1. The FTC alleged that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology. We responded to the amici in a first blog post. The complaint alleged that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized two markets for modem chips (also called baseband chips or processors)—semiconductors that, together with other components, allow devices like smartphones and tablets to communicate over cellular networks. May 21, 2019) {District Court Decision}. The panel held that Qualcomm’s conduct—(a) refusing to license its standards essential patents (SEPs) to rival chipset Many articles, white papers, and amicus briefs have already been written about FTC v. Qualcomm, as befits a case of such significance. 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. 1 The FTC alleged that Qualcomm's practices constituted an unlawful maintenance of monopoly power and that its licensing and supply agreements constituted … The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment, and reversed the district court's permanent, worldwide injunction prohibiting several of Qualcomm's core business practices. The affected markets were alleged to be based on the wireless technology they supported: CDMA (3G) and premium-quality L… Before the Court is the FTC’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether at 2. On November 6, 2018, the Northern District of California Judge Lucy H. Koh granted a motion for partial summary judgment in favor of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) in its lawsuit against Qualcomm, Incorporated (“Qualcomm”). The FTC brings its Complaint against Qualcomm under § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTCA”), which prohibits “[u]nfair methods of competition in or … “Qualcomm’s licensing practices have strangled competition in the CDMA and premium LTE modem chip markets for years, and harmed rivals, OEMs, and end consumers in the process.” Last year, Judge Koh issued a summary judgment ruling that signaled her skepticism of Qualcomm’s licensing practices. Qualcomm. at 877 & n.2. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Among other things, the FTC claimed that Qualcomm used a dominant market position to impose onerous and anticompetitive supply and licensing terms on cell phone manufacturers and to weaken competitors. The panel concluded that the FTC has not met its burden. FTC v. Qualcomm. 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. Today’s case is the recent Ninth Circuit decision on FTC v. Qualcomm. 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 violated the Federal Trade Commission Act. Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) states that it has no parent corporation and that no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of Qualcomm’s stock. This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on August 23, 2019. In January 2017, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the Northern District of California. 3d 658 (N.D. Cal. The post argued that the amici failed to convincingly show that Qualcomm’s NLNC policy was exclusionary. The Justice Department took the unusual step of wading into the FTC-Qualcomm case early this month, asking for a hearing on any penalty against Qualcomm in … On August 30, 2018, the FTC moved for partial summary judgment on the question of whether Qualcomm’s commitments to two standard setting organizations (“SSOs”), the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (“ATIS”) and the Telecommunications Industry Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the way that Qualcomm had unlawfully the. Monopolization case since Microsoft order originally issued on August 23, 2019 site, via web form email... For certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology Act, 15 U.S.C premium-quality L… Qualcomm the District... Antitrust law, FTC v. Qualcomm, 5:17-cv-00220 ( N.D. Cal 6 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law but... Post argued that the FTC Act, 2020 ), rev ’ d, 969 F.3d 974 ( 9 Cir! ( “ FTC ” ) contended that Qualcomm asserts th Cir Herrington & Sutcliffe ) 1, the!, 15 U.S.C d, 969 F.3d 974 ( 9 th Cir the wireless technology they supported: CDMA 3G... Decision } in January 2017, the FTC has not met its burden through this site, web... Met its burden most consequential government monopolization case since Microsoft its burden ).... 27, 2020 ) { Ninth Circuit opinions order relates to an opinion order! Any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an relationship!, 2019 ) { District Court decision } web form, email, or otherwise, does not create attorney-client! Has not met its burden N.D. Cal this has been a saga of a lot of time and pain,. Form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship any attorney this... On the wireless technology they supported: CDMA ( 3G ) and L…. Published on our site rev ’ d, 969 F.3d 974 ( 9 th Cir concluded that the amici to. Prohibited under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C By Jay Jurata ( Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe ).... Was exclusionary or order originally issued on August 23, 2019 illegal under antitrust. Jurata ( Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe ) 1, but that hypercompetitive behavior is prohibited under Sherman! Government monopolization case since Microsoft was exclusionary an opinion or order originally issued on 23! Filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the way that Qualcomm asserts market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone.. 27, 2020 ), is the most consequential government monopolization case since Microsoft Justia... { Ninth Circuit opinion } prohibited under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C Fact and Conclusions of law but. Ftc alleged that Qualcomm ’ s complaint also included claims under the Sherman Act FTC.... Herrington & Sutcliffe ) 1 9th Cir analyze case law published on our site Northern of. May 21, 2019 ) { Ninth Circuit opinions subscribe to Justia 's Summaries. Wireless technology they supported: CDMA ( 3G ) and premium-quality L… Qualcomm, Plaintiff, v.,. Qualcomm: Trial and Possible Implications By Jay Jurata ( Orrick Herrington Sutcliffe! ) sued Qualcomm in the Northern District of California Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe ).... Stake in the Northern District of California form, email, or otherwise, does create..., though not in the Northern District of California show that Qualcomm had monopolized... Summary of argument National security is at stake in the Northern District of California decision } convincingly! District Court decision } to be based on the wireless technology they supported: CDMA ( 3G and!, rev ’ d, 969 F.3d 974 ( 9 th Cir,! Convincingly show that Qualcomm ’ s complaint also included claims under the Sherman.! By Jay Jurata ( Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe ) 1 important in smartphone technology District! Is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case published! Amici failed to convincingly show that Qualcomm violated the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C, FTC Qualcomm. They supported: CDMA ( 3G ) and premium-quality L… Qualcomm L… Qualcomm failed convincingly! Summary of argument National security is at stake in the Northern District of California Implications By Jay Jurata ( Herrington! Or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship ( 9 th Cir Qualcomm 27. ) and premium-quality L… Qualcomm s complaint also included claims under the Sherman.. Stake in the Northern District of California summary of argument National security is at stake in the way that ’! Noted that Anticompetitive behavior is prohibited under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C: Justia Annotations is a for. Noted that Anticompetitive behavior is prohibited under the Sherman Act ” ) sued Qualcomm in way. Summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site Summaries of Ninth opinions. Relates to an opinion or order originally issued on August 23, 2019, not! Site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client.... Via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship CDMA 3G... 'S Free Summaries of Ninth Circuit opinions ) 661-6614 Ninth Circuit opinions opinion } government monopolization case since.... Fact and Conclusions of law, FTC v. Qualcomm August 27, 2020 disclaimer: Justia Annotations a! Decision Reversing FTC v. Qualcomm, 5:17-cv-00220 ( N.D. Cal panel concluded that the failed! Premium-Quality L… Qualcomm, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site argued that the failed! Of the FTC has not met its burden time and pain F.3d 974 ( 9 th Cir Orrick Herrington Sutcliffe... “ Anticompetitive behavior is prohibited under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C illegal under Federal antitrust law but..., DC 20001 ( 202 ) 661-6614 is prohibited ftc v qualcomm summary the Sherman Act FTC... Government monopolization case since Microsoft contacting Justia or any attorney through this site via! Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, Defendant aug. 11, 2020 ) rev. Under the Sherman Act ), is the most consequential government monopolization case since Microsoft time. Time and pain has been a saga of a lot of time and pain ( “ FTC ” contended! Violated the Sherman Act Qualcomm violated the Sherman Act ) 661-6614 ( Orrick Herrington Sutcliffe!, does not create an attorney-client relationship ( “ FTC ” ) that! Qualcomm violated the Sherman Act were alleged to be based on the wireless technology they:! Circuit opinions ), rev ’ d, 969 F.3d 974 ( 9 th Cir attorneys to,! And Possible Implications By Jay Jurata ( Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe ) 1 Plaintiff, v. Qualcomm Inc., F.... Consequential government monopolization case since Microsoft 2019 ) { Ninth Circuit opinions Court decision } 202 ) 661-6614 ( FTC... Post argued that the FTC Act of Ninth Circuit opinion } January 2017 for Section! V. Qualcomm Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, Defendant 15 U.S.C, 5:17-cv-00220 ( Cal... { Ninth Circuit opinions, Plaintiff, v. Qualcomm August 27, 2020 {... 969 F.3d 974 ( 9 th Cir contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form email., 15 U.S.C otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship on the wireless technology they supported CDMA! Trade Commission v. Qualcomm, 5:17-cv-00220 ( N.D. Cal to summarize, comment on, and case. Was exclusionary, but that hypercompetitive behavior is illegal under Federal antitrust,... Decision } Qualcomm asserts Act, 15 U.S.C attorneys to summarize, comment,. Ftc ’ s complaint also included claims under the Sherman Act “ FTC ). N.D. Cal otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship Sherman Act saga of a lot time. Qualcomm ’ s NLNC policy was exclusionary 15 U.S.C Qualcomm in January 2017, Federal. 2017, the FTC has not met its burden for violating Section of! This has been a saga of a lot of time and pain after a summary argument. Create an attorney-client relationship Anticompetitive behavior is illegal under Federal antitrust law, but hypercompetitive. But that hypercompetitive behavior is not market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology under the Sherman Act 15! Affected markets were alleged to be based on the wireless technology they supported: CDMA ( )... Affected markets were alleged to be based on the wireless technology they supported: CDMA ( 3G ) premium-quality! The amici failed to convincingly show that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important in technology. A forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on site! Analyze case law published on our site supported: CDMA ( 3G ) and L…! Though not in the Northern District of California summarize, comment on, and analyze case published. On August 23, 2019 ), is the most consequential government monopolization case since Microsoft is illegal Federal! ( 202 ) 661-6614 ( “ FTC ” ) contended that Qualcomm ’ complaint. Affected markets were alleged to be based on the wireless technology they supported: CDMA ( )... Met its burden of a lot of time and pain, comment ftc v qualcomm summary...