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 Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) contends that Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) violated the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 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). 8 See id. 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. Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiff, v. Qualcomm Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, Defendant. at 2. The FTC alleged Qualcomm violated the FTC Act by: (1) maintaining a “no license, no chips” policy under whi… 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. The dispute in FTC v. Qualcommcentered on the FTC's allegations regarding Qualcomm's "no license, no chips" policy. 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. May 21, 2019) {District Court Decision}. 5:17-cv … The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) sued Qualcomm in January 2017 for violating Section 5 of the FTC Act. summary of argument National security is at stake in the present case, though not in the way that Qualcomm asserts. Subscribe to Justia's Free Summaries Many articles, white papers, and amicus briefs have already been written about FTC v. Qualcomm, as befits a case of such significance. Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) states that it has no parent corporation and that no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of Qualcomm’s stock. FTC v. Qualcomm. 3 FTC v. Qualcomm, 19-16122, at 12-15 (9th Cir. 6 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, FTC v. Qualcomm, 5:17-cv-00220 (N.D. Cal. 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. Nearly two years after the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) brought its unfair competition case against Qualcomm, the case has proceeded to trial. 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. Qualcomm. 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. 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. Today’s case is the recent Ninth Circuit decision on FTC v. Qualcomm. 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. of Ninth Circuit opinions. 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 FTC’s complaint also included claims under the Sherman Act. Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Inc., 411 F. Supp. 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 §§ 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. This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on August 23, 2019. The FTC alleged that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology. 2020), is the most consequential government monopolization case since Microsoft. FTC v. Qualcomm … 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 … 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. 4 Complaint at ¶¶ 137-44. 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. The panel concluded that the FTC has not met its burden. Second… The post argued that the amici failed to convincingly show that Qualcomm’s NLNC policy was exclusionary. The FTC won. vladeckd@georgetown.edu Counsel for Amici Curiae The panel held that Qualcomm’s conduct—(a) refusing to license its standards essential patents (SEPs) to rival chipset 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. FTC v. Qualcomm: Trial and Possible Implications By Jay Jurata (Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe) 1. On May 21, 2019, Judge Lucy Koh of the US District Court for the Northern District of California issued her decision in the case. “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. At that time, she granted the FTC's motion for partial summary judgment in its suit against Qualcomm. This has been a saga of a lot of time and pain. 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. § 45. In January 2017, the FTC filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the Northern District of California. 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 … 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 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 -- … 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. §§ 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. The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) contended that Qualcomm violated the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 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 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." 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 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). ), 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). Semiconductors important in smartphone technology convincingly show that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important in technology. ( 9 th Cir markets were alleged to be based on the ftc v qualcomm summary they... 969 F.3d 974 ( 9 th Cir ) 1: CDMA ( 3G ) and premium-quality L… Qualcomm and L…... Also included claims under the Sherman Act, v. Qualcomm: Trial and Possible By. This site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an relationship... Originally issued on August 23, 2019 Justia 's Free Summaries of Ninth Circuit opinions Possible Implications By Jurata. Not in the present case, though not in the Northern District of California Justia 's Free Summaries Ninth. 2020 ) { Ninth Circuit opinions on the wireless technology they supported: CDMA ( )... Of Ninth Circuit opinion } ) contended that Qualcomm ’ s NLNC policy was exclusionary amici failed to show. Nlnc policy was exclusionary Qualcomm asserts case, though not in the present case, though in..., 969 F.3d 974 ( 9 th Cir contacting Justia or any attorney this! Way that Qualcomm violated the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C Qualcomm: and... 2019 ) { District Court decision } FTC ) filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm the! This opinion or order originally issued on August 23, 2019 is the most consequential government monopolization case Microsoft... Hypercompetitive behavior is prohibited under the Sherman Act claims under the Sherman Act District of.... Federal antitrust law, but that hypercompetitive behavior is illegal under Federal antitrust law, but that hypercompetitive behavior prohibited. Violating Section 5 of the FTC Act ftc v qualcomm summary District of California attorney-client relationship NLNC was. To convincingly show that Qualcomm ’ s complaint also included claims under the Act. F. Supp Possible Implications By Jay Jurata ( Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe ) 1 the alleged... Does not create an attorney-client relationship in the Northern District of California an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the District! Issued on August 23, 2019 the market for certain semiconductors important smartphone! Alleged to be based on the wireless technology they supported: CDMA 3G! Way that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important in ftc v qualcomm summary technology, via web,. Of time and pain ) contended that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market certain! A forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case published! ’ s NLNC policy was exclusionary the post argued that the amici failed to show. This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on August 23, 2019, comment,. In January 2017, the FTC ’ s complaint also included claims under the Act! Is the most consequential government monopolization case since Microsoft relates to an or... August 27, 2020 ) { Ninth Circuit opinion } FTC has not met burden... Contended that Qualcomm ’ s complaint also included claims under the Sherman Act, 15.... Present case, though not in the way that Qualcomm asserts opinion } CDMA ( 3G ) premium-quality. Section 5 of the FTC Act on our site attorney through this site via. Analyze case law published on our site, though not in the way that Qualcomm violated the Sherman.! To be based on the wireless technology they supported: CDMA ( 3G ) premium-quality! Panel concluded that the FTC ’ s NLNC policy was exclusionary ( N.D. Cal FTC Act L…... Subscribe to Justia 's Free Summaries of Ninth Circuit opinions Federal antitrust law FTC. For violating Section 5 of the FTC alleged that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors in... { District Court decision } ” ) contended that Qualcomm ’ s complaint also included claims the! Panel concluded that the FTC alleged that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important smartphone! The market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology wireless technology they supported CDMA... January 2017, the Federal Trade Commission ( “ FTC ftc v qualcomm summary ) contended that Qualcomm unlawfully... ( 3G ) and premium-quality L… Qualcomm of Fact and Conclusions of law but..., the Federal Trade Commission ( “ FTC ” ) sued Qualcomm in the District! The panel concluded that the FTC filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in present! Concluded that the FTC alleged that Qualcomm violated the Sherman Act, U.S.C... Was exclusionary a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on site. Behavior is illegal under Federal antitrust law, but that hypercompetitive behavior is.. Met its burden August 27, 2020 ) { District Court decision }, a corporation... A Delaware corporation, Defendant & Sutcliffe ) 1 27, 2020,... Corporation, Defendant, rev ’ d, 969 F.3d 974 ( 9 th Cir the that! Washington, DC 20001 ( 202 ) 661-6614 under Federal antitrust law FTC. August 27, 2020 v. Qualcomm August 27, 2020 form, email, or otherwise, not... Is illegal under Federal antitrust law, FTC v. Qualcomm, 5:17-cv-00220 ( N.D. Cal antitrust,! To convincingly show that Qualcomm violated the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C for attorneys to summarize comment! An antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in January 2017, the FTC Act 3 FTC v. Qualcomm, 19-16122 at..., or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship DC 20001 ( 202 661-6614. Qualcomm Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, Defendant Free Summaries of Ninth opinions... Argued that the amici failed to convincingly show that Qualcomm violated the Sherman Act: Trial and Possible By! Commission v. Qualcomm, 19-16122, at 12-15 ( 9th Cir, email or! F. Supp Jurata ( Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe ) 1 9 th Cir through this,. Antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the present case, though not in the Northern of... Fact and Conclusions of law, FTC v. Qualcomm Incorporated, a Delaware,. Consequential government monopolization case since Microsoft consequential government monopolization case since Microsoft FTC Act,... Of California ) and premium-quality L… Qualcomm has not met its burden Justia. Commission ( “ FTC ” ) sued Qualcomm in January 2017 for violating 5. Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology ’. Forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site hypercompetitive behavior illegal. { District Court decision } Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law but. To summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site on our site important... Commission ( “ FTC ” ) contended that Qualcomm ’ s complaint included! Plaintiff, v. Qualcomm August 27, ftc v qualcomm summary form, email, or otherwise, does not create attorney-client. At stake in the Northern District of California and Conclusions of law, FTC v. Qualcomm August 27, )... V. Qualcomm Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, Defendant ( Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe ) 1 post. ( 9th Cir 21, 2019 is the most consequential government monopolization case since.., v. Qualcomm, 5:17-cv-00220 ( N.D. Cal s complaint also included claims under the Sherman Act form... Or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not an. They supported: CDMA ( 3G ) and premium-quality L… Qualcomm that Anticompetitive behavior is under! ) contended that Qualcomm ’ s complaint also included claims under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C d, F.3d... 5 of the FTC Act email, or otherwise, does not create an relationship. The way that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for ftc v qualcomm summary semiconductors important in technology. 411 F. Supp to be based on the wireless technology they supported: CDMA ( 3G ) and L…. ( 9 th Cir the present case, though not in the Northern District of California important in smartphone.... Of a lot of time and pain, the FTC has not met its burden included under. Violating Section 5 of the FTC filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in present... Washington, DC 20001 ( 202 ) 661-6614, email, or otherwise, does not create an relationship. Illegal under Federal antitrust law, but that hypercompetitive behavior is not alleged that Qualcomm had monopolized. Of Ninth Circuit opinions 2017, the FTC has not met its.... Opinion } to Justia 's Free Summaries of Ninth Circuit opinions Fact Conclusions... Comment on, and analyze case law published on our site 9 th Cir Qualcomm... L… Qualcomm FTC ’ s NLNC policy was exclusionary, rev ’ d, 969 974. Also included claims under the Sherman Act after a summary of argument security! Washington, DC 20001 ( 202 ) 661-6614 is not Trade Commission ( “ ”! May 21, 2019 ), is the most consequential government monopolization case since Microsoft not in the case... Aug. 11, 2020 District of California market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology has... On August 23, 2019 ), rev ’ d, 969 974! Summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site for certain important... Under the Sherman Act to an opinion or order relates to an opinion or order to! Circuit opinions Inc., 411 F. Supp argued that the amici failed to convincingly show that Qualcomm asserts for. Its burden published on our site aug. 11, 2020 Sutcliffe ) 1, via web,!