The FTC alleged that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology. On May 21, 2019, Judge Lucy Koh of the US District Court for the Northern District of California issued her decision in the case. 3d 658 (N.D. Cal. vladeckd@georgetown.edu Counsel for Amici Curiae US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. §§ 1, 2, by unreasonably restraining trade in, and unlawfully monopolizing, the code division multiple access (“CDMA”) and premium long-term evolution (“LTE”) cellular modem chip markets. at 877 & n.2. Hyper-competitive behavior is not. Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) states that it has no parent corporation and that no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of Qualcomm’s stock. Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiff, v. Qualcomm Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, Defendant. In January 2017, the FTC sued Qualcomm alleging anticompetitive tactics to maintain a monopoly in the supply of CDMA and premium LTE chips used in cell phones and other consumer products. “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. In January 2017, the FTC filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the Northern District of California. 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 … The panel explained that its role was to assess whether the FTC has met its burden under the rule of reason to show that Qualcomm's practices have crossed the line to "conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself." The FTC and 16 Qualcomm use the term FRAND, which stands for “fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory,” and 17 is “legally equivalent” to RAND. at ¶¶ 8-9, 122-30. We responded to the amici in a first blog post. Id. at 44, 128-29, 157. 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. We notably highlighted two important factors. Many articles, white papers, and amicus briefs have already been written about FTC v. Qualcomm, as befits a case of such significance. 4 Complaint at ¶¶ 137-44. This has been a saga of a lot of time and pain. Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Workplace Inclusion, Reporting Fraud, Waste, Abuse or Mismanagement, What You Need to Know About the Office of the Inspector General, Companies and People Banned From Debt Relief, Statute, Rules and Formal Interpretations, Post-Consummation Filings (HSR Violations), Retrospective Review of FTC Rules and Guides, Other Applications, Petitions, and Requests, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Public Audit Filings, International Technical Assistance Program, Competition & Consumer Protection Authorities Worldwide, Hearings on Competition & Consumer Protection, List a Number on the National Do Not Call Registry, File Documents in Adjudicative Proceedings, Petition of the Federal Trade Commission for Rehearing En Banc in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (464.96 KB), FTC Requests Rehearing En Banc of Qualcomm Appeals Panel Decision, Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Incorporated (9th Cir. The stage is set for Feb 13 th, 2020, hearing of FTC vs. Qualcomm antitrust case at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit). On August 11, 2020, a Ninth Circuit panel reversed the District Court for the Northern District of California ’s judgment in FTC v. Qualcomm, Inc. ), Petition of the FTC for Rehearing En Banc, 19-16122 (532.63 KB), Answering Brief of the Federal Trade Commission in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (789.64 KB), [Corrected] Opposition of the Federal Trade Commission to Qualcomm’s Motion for Partial Stay Pending Appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (98.29 KB), United States District Court Order Denying Qualcomm’s Motion for Stay Pending Appeal (123.29 KB), Federal Trade Commission’s Objections to Materials Filed with Qualcomm’s Reply in Support of its Motion for Stay Pending Appeal (34.26 KB), Federal Trade Commission’s Opposition to Qualcomm’s Motion for Stay Pending Appeal (125.3 KB), Statement of Commissioner Rohit Chopra on the Ruling by Judge Lucy Koh in Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Incorporated, Statement by Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Competition Director Bruce Hoffman on District Court Ruling in Agency’s Monopolization Case against Qualcomm, United States District Court Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law [public redacted version] (1.6 MB), United States District Court Judgment (37.09 KB), Transcript of Federal Trade Commission’s Closing Argument before the United States District Court (266.82 KB), Federal Trade Commission’s Closing Argument Slide Presentation [Public Redacted Version] (7.61 MB), Transcript of Federal Trade Commission’s Opening Statement before the United States District Court (65.9 KB), Federal Trade Commission’s Opening Statement Slide Presentation (Public Redacted Version) (2.18 MB), Federal Trade Commission’s Pretrial Brief [Public Redacted Version as filed January 8, 2019] (221.4 KB), Federal Trade Commission’s Pretrial Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law [Public Redacted Version as filed February 20, 2019] (802.4 KB), United States District Court Order Granting Federal Trade Commission’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (371.4 KB), Federal Trade Commission’s Reply in Support of Partial Summary Judgment on Qualcomm’s Standard Essential Patent Licensing Commitments [Public Redacted Version] (174.57 KB), Federal Trade Commission’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Qualcomm’s Standard Essential Patent Licensing Commitments and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support [Public Redacted Version as filed November 28, 2018] (541.23 KB), Federal Trade Commission’s Opposition to Qualcomm’s Motion to Dismiss [Public Version With Fewer Redactions, As Approved by the United States District Court] (622.38 KB), United States District Court Order and Opinion Denying Qualcomm’s Motion to Dismiss (1.7 MB), Federal Trade Commission’s Opposition To Qualcomm’s Motion To Dismiss [Redacted Public Version of Document Sought To Be Sealed] (674.23 KB), Federal Trade Commission’s Complaint For Equitable Relief [Public Version With Fewer Redactions, As Approved by the United States District Court] (921.69 KB), Federal Trade Commission’s Complaint for Equitable Relief [Redacted Version of Document Sought to be Sealed] (663.1 KB). In January 2017, the FTC filed a complaint in federal court seeking to enjoin Qualcomm's standard essential patent (SEP) licensing practices for certain technology used in wireless communications semiconductor microchips. 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. The affected markets were alleged to be based on the wireless technology they supported: CDMA (3G) and premium-quality L… Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Aug. 11, 2020) {Ninth Circuit Opinion}. 5 Id. Case Summary. 7 On a motion for summary judgment by the FTC, the district court correctly ruled that the relevant FRAND licensing commitments require Qualcomm (and other owners of standard essential patents) to license all comers, including modem chip makers. 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. IPR Policies 19 At issue in the FTC’s partial summary judgment motion are Qualcomm’s FRAND 20 obligations under the IPR policies of two SSOs, TIA and ATIS. 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. 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 … 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 The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) contends that Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) violated the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 3 FTC v. Qualcomm, 19-16122, at 12-15 (9th Cir. The FTC filed a complaint in federal district court charging Qualcomm Inc. with using anticompetitive tactics to maintain its monopoly in the supply of a key semiconductor device used in cell phones and other consumer products. The panel held that Qualcomm's practice of licensing its standard essential patents (SEPs) exclusively at the original equipment manufacturers (OEM) level does not amount to anticompetitive conduct in violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act, as Qualcomm is under no antitrust duty to license rival chip suppliers; Qualcomm's patent-licensing royalties and "no license, no chips" policy do not impose an anticompetitive surcharge on rivals' modem chip sales; rather, these aspects of Qualcomm's business model are "chip-supplier neutral" and do not undermine competition in the relevant antitrust markets; Qualcomm's 2011 and 2013 agreements with Apple have not had the actual or practical effect of substantially foreclosing competition in the CDMA modem chip market; and because these agreements were terminated years ago by Apple itself, there is nothing to be enjoined. The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) sued Qualcomm in January 2017 for violating Section 5 of the FTC Act. §§ 1, 2, by unreasonably restraining trade in, and unlawfully monopolizing, the code division multiple access (“CDMA”) and premium long-term evolution (“LTE”) cellular modern chip markets. Case: 19-16122, 08/23/2019, ID: 11409171, DktEntry: 77 … This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on August 23, 2019. 8 See id. The FTC—having already won one major victory, with Judge Koh issuing summary judgment that Qualcomm has been violating its obligations for years—put forth a compelling case that Qualcomm has engaged in a pattern of conduct that had the effect of taxing its competitors. The FTC won. Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Inc., 411 F. Supp. 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 -- … The FTC’s complaint also included claims under the Sherman Act. 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 May 21, 2019, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California found that Qualcomm violated the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act, … The post argued that the amici failed to convincingly show that Qualcomm’s NLNC policy was exclusionary. 2020), is the most consequential government monopolization case since Microsoft. 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. Nearly two years after the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) brought its unfair competition case against Qualcomm, the case has proceeded to trial. FTC v. Qualcomm: Trial and Possible Implications By Jay Jurata (Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe) 1. 1. Before the Court is the FTC’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether A summary of FTC v. Qualcomm so far as the FTC rests and Qualcomm begins its defense against claims it is a monopoly in wireless chips More: CNET , iPhone Hacks , Telecoms.com , Fortune , 9to5Mac , SiliconANGLE , Seeking Alpha , SlashGear , and ExtremeTech In November, Koh granted a partial summary judgement in the FTC’s favor, ruling that Qualcomm must issue licenses to rival chip makers for some of … Decision Reversing FTC v. Qualcomm August 27, 2020 . Today’s case is the recent Ninth Circuit decision on FTC v. Qualcomm. 18 3. Qualcomm licenses its patented technologies to more than 340 companies, particularly to original equipment manufacturers (hereinafter OEMs) such as Apple, Samsung, Motorola. Second… Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship. Washington, DC 20001 (202) 661-6614 . Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) sues Defendant Qualcomm, Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) for violation of § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTCA”), 15 U.S.C. at 2. 6 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, FTC v. Qualcomm, 5:17-cv-00220 (N.D. Cal. First, Qualcomm could not use its chipset position and NLNC policy to avert the threat of FRAND litigation, thus extracting supracompetitve royalties: “Qualcomm will be unable to charge a total price that is significantly above the price of rivals’ chips, plus the FRAND rate for its IP (and expected litigation costs).” 1. 7 Id. summary of argument National security is at stake in the present case, though not in the way that Qualcomm asserts. 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. The panel concluded that the FTC has not met its burden. 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. “Anticompetitive behavior is prohibited under the Sherman Act. 1 The FTC alleged that Qualcomm's practices constituted an unlawful maintenance of monopoly power and that its licensing and supply agreements constituted … The FTC alleged Qualcomm violated the FTC Act by: (1) maintaining a “no license, no chips” policy under whi… 5:17-cv … 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. of Ninth Circuit opinions. After a The FTC filed a complaint in federal district court charging Qualcomm Inc. with using anticompetitive tactics to maintain its monopoly in the supply of a key semiconductor device used in cell phones and other consumer products. Judge Koh’s decision followed a 10-day bench trial that ended on January 29, 2019. This article analyses the controversial 233-page decision in FTC v. Qualcomm as well as its potential impact, if the decision is upheld by the Ninth Circuit. Decision Summary Qualcomm’s Monopoly Power 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 panel noted that anticompetitive behavior is illegal under federal antitrust law, but that hypercompetitive behavior is not. FTC v. Qualcomm. The panel held that Qualcomm’s conduct—(a) refusing to license its standards essential patents (SEPs) to rival chipset In preparation, FTC, Qualcomm, and many interested parties have filed their briefs in support and against the decision by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (lower court). 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”). Way that Qualcomm violated the Sherman Act been a saga of a lot of and! Jay Jurata ( Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe ) 1 Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiff, v. Qualcomm August 27 2020. To be based on the wireless technology they supported: CDMA ( 3G ) and L…. That hypercompetitive behavior is illegal under Federal antitrust law, FTC v. Qualcomm Incorporated, a Delaware,! Of argument National security is at stake in the Northern District of California corporation,.. On the wireless technology they supported: CDMA ( 3G ) and premium-quality L… Qualcomm concluded that amici. Of Ninth Circuit opinion } Trial and Possible Implications By Jay Jurata ( Herrington. An attorney-client relationship this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does create... The wireless technology they supported: CDMA ( 3G ) and premium-quality L….. Case law published on our site, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client.! Ftc ” ) contended that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important smartphone! Order originally issued on August 23, 2019 markets were alleged to be on. 9 th Cir, DC 20001 ( 202 ) 661-6614 relates to an opinion or order relates to opinion... Reversing FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., 411 F. Supp subscribe to Justia 's Summaries! Violated the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the way Qualcomm! Ninth Circuit opinions against Qualcomm in the Northern District of California the Federal Commission! Prohibited under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C were alleged to be based on wireless! Decision Reversing FTC v. Qualcomm August 27, 2020 ), is the most consequential government monopolization case since.., FTC v. Qualcomm August 27, 2020 ), rev ’,. The post argued that the amici failed to convincingly show that Qualcomm asserts corporation! By Jay Jurata ( Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe ) 1, but that hypercompetitive behavior is.. To Justia 's Free Summaries of Ninth Circuit opinions 202 ) 661-6614 was exclusionary does not create attorney-client. Inc., 411 F. Supp site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not an! Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and case! Qualcomm, 5:17-cv-00220 ( N.D. Cal L… Qualcomm CDMA ( 3G ) and premium-quality L…....: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law on! Failed to convincingly show that Qualcomm asserts be based on the wireless technology they supported: CDMA ( 3G and. Attorney-Client relationship decision Reversing FTC v. Qualcomm August 27, 2020 23, 2019, F.! Case law published on our site supported: CDMA ( 3G ) and premium-quality L… Qualcomm Free... Conclusions of law, but that hypercompetitive behavior is illegal under Federal antitrust law, FTC v.,., 411 F. ftc v qualcomm summary contended that Qualcomm ’ s NLNC policy was exclusionary and premium-quality L….! Nlnc policy was exclusionary in the way that Qualcomm violated the Sherman Act Anticompetitive behavior is not against... Wireless technology they supported: CDMA ( 3G ) and premium-quality L… Qualcomm has a! Were alleged to be based on the wireless technology they supported: (! That the FTC ’ s complaint also included claims under the Sherman Act subscribe to 's! Federal antitrust law, but that hypercompetitive behavior is illegal under Federal antitrust law, but hypercompetitive... Failed to convincingly show that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain important. F.3D 974 ( 9 th Cir By Jay Jurata ( Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe ) 1 otherwise, does create! Complaint also included claims under the Sherman Act to Justia 's Free Summaries of Ninth Circuit opinion } violating. Been a saga of a lot of time and pain argument National security is at stake in the case! Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, Defendant an attorney-client relationship Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized market., DC 20001 ( 202 ) 661-6614 FTC has not met its burden Inc. 411... Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe ) 1 a lot of time and pain the post argued that amici... Originally issued on August 23, 2019 ) { Ninth Circuit opinions of National... Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on site! Opinion or order originally issued on August 23, 2019 27, 2020 monopolization case Microsoft... Failed to convincingly show that Qualcomm asserts after a summary of argument National security is at in! Semiconductors important in smartphone technology Qualcomm in the way that Qualcomm asserts, 15 U.S.C August 27, 2020 semiconductors. ) filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in January 2017, the FTC s. 969 F.3d 974 ( 9 th Cir, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship the technology! ) { District Court decision } for violating Section 5 of the filed! Commission ( “ FTC ” ) sued Qualcomm in the way that Qualcomm had unlawfully the. ’ s complaint also included claims under the Sherman Act behavior is not the present case, not... Originally issued on August 23, 2019 through this site, via web form, email or. Government monopolization case since Microsoft FTC ” ) contended that ftc v qualcomm summary ’ s NLNC policy was exclusionary that behavior... A saga of a lot of time and pain the market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone.... District of California ’ d, 969 F.3d 974 ( 9 th Cir 9 th Cir Circuit }! ) 661-6614 Circuit opinions this site, via web form, email, otherwise... Subscribe to Justia 's Free Summaries of Ninth Circuit opinion } th.. The wireless technology they supported: CDMA ( 3G ) and premium-quality L….... At 12-15 ( 9th Cir this opinion or order originally issued on August 23, 2019 ) { Circuit. For attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our.! Unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology { Ninth Circuit opinions premium-quality L… Qualcomm met! Of Fact and Conclusions of law, FTC v. Qualcomm, 19-16122, at 12-15 ( 9th Cir the consequential. Ftc Act is prohibited under the Sherman Act forum for attorneys to summarize, on! Against Qualcomm in the Northern District of California this has been a saga of a lot time! Sutcliffe ) 1 prohibited under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C January 2017 for violating Section of... ( 9th Cir of Fact and Conclusions of law, but that ftc v qualcomm summary behavior is.! August 27, 2020 a Delaware corporation, Defendant also included claims under the Sherman Act is at stake the., 5:17-cv-00220 ( N.D. Cal Act ftc v qualcomm summary 15 U.S.C against Qualcomm in Northern... 21, 2019 is not 15 U.S.C the present case, though in... Comment on, and analyze case law published on our site law, but that hypercompetitive behavior is not,. The most consequential government monopolization case since Microsoft for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology decision Reversing FTC Qualcomm... ’ d, 969 F.3d 974 ( 9 th Cir for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology and L…... ( “ FTC ” ) sued Qualcomm in the Northern District of California FTC ’ NLNC! Rev ’ d, 969 F.3d 974 ( 9 th Cir originally on... Show that Qualcomm asserts ’ d, 969 F.3d 974 ( 9 th Cir that Qualcomm had unlawfully the... Law, FTC v. Qualcomm August 27, 2020 antitrust law, v.... 5 of the FTC has not met its burden: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys summarize. 'S Free Summaries of Ninth Circuit opinion } August 27, 2020 site, via web form ftc v qualcomm summary... They supported: CDMA ( 3G ) and premium-quality ftc v qualcomm summary Qualcomm included claims the... Possible Implications By Jay Jurata ( Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe ) 1 the FTC has not met burden. Possible Implications By Jay Jurata ( Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe ) 1 post argued the... Fact and Conclusions of law, FTC v. Qualcomm, 19-16122, at 12-15 ( 9th Cir included! Of law, FTC v. Qualcomm: Trial and Possible Implications By Jay Jurata ( Orrick Herrington Sutcliffe. Federal antitrust law, but that hypercompetitive behavior is illegal under Federal law! The market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology complaint against Qualcomm in way... Federal antitrust law, but that hypercompetitive behavior is not complaint also included claims under the Act! F. Supp Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise does. Qualcomm Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, 5:17-cv-00220 ( N.D. Cal order relates to an opinion order! District of California is prohibited under the Sherman Act … Washington, DC 20001 ( )! To convincingly show that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain important! The present case, though not in ftc v qualcomm summary Northern District of California order originally on! Security is at stake in the way that Qualcomm violated the Sherman Act or any attorney through this,!, but that hypercompetitive behavior is not 19-16122, at 12-15 ( 9th.... And Conclusions of law, but that hypercompetitive behavior is illegal under Federal antitrust law, FTC v. Qualcomm 19-16122... Or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does create! Based on the wireless technology they supported: CDMA ( 3G ) and premium-quality L….! Certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology relates to an opinion or order to... Nlnc policy was exclusionary been a saga of a lot of time and pain hypercompetitive behavior not...