The United States Federal Trade Commission’s case against Qualcomm has just taken an important step. In a ruling released last night, the US District Court judge Lucy Koh issued her final ruling on the case, finding in favor of the FTC that Qualcomm has violated the Federal Trade Commission Act. As part of her ruling, Koh also outlined a series of remedies that Qualcomm would need to undertake, including terminating its “no license, no chips” policy, and undergoing 7 years of Federal oversight. Qualcomm for its part was quick to react to the ruling, announcing that it will seek an immediate stay of the ruling as well as appeal to a higher court.

First filed back at the start of 2017, the FTC alleged that Qualcomm undertook multiple anticompetitive actions, including that the company refused to follow FRAND practices on its patents, and that it used its leverage to force device manufacturers to use its modems by making competing modems more expensive via royalties. The FTC also alleged that Qualcomm worked to prevent the adoption of competing (non-LTE) technologies altogether.

Under the lengthy findings of fact document, Koh sided with the FTC on virtually all matters, ruling that Qualcomm abused its market position in several manners. This includes unfair licensing practices under the “no license, no chips” policy, which required customers to license Qualcomm patents in order to buy its baseband processors, refusing to license its standards-essential patents under FRAND terms, and by engaging in anti-competitive exclusivity deals with companies like Apple. Getting right to the heart of the matter, the judge noted that “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.”

Koh in turn ordered several remedies that Qualcomm will be required to undertake, in order to prevent future abuse.

  1. Qualcomm must not condition the supply of modem chips on a customer’s patent license status and Qualcomm must negotiate or renegotiate license terms with customers in good faith under conditions free from the threat of lack of access to or discriminatory provision of modem chip supply or associated technical support or access to software.
  2. Qualcomm must make exhaustive SEP licenses available to modem-chip suppliers on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms and to submit, as necessary, to arbitral or judicial dispute resolution to determine such terms.
  3. Qualcomm may not enter express or de facto exclusive dealing agreements for the supply of modem chips.
  4. Qualcomm may not interfere with the ability of any customer to communicate with a government agency about a potential law enforcement or regulatory matter.
  5. In order to ensure Qualcomm’s compliance with the above remedies, the Court orders Qualcomm to submit to compliance and monitoring procedures for a period of seven (7) years. Specifically, Qualcomm shall report to the FTC on an annual basis Qualcomm’s compliance with the above remedies ordered by the Court.

In short, Qualcomm must cease requiring chip buyers to buy Qualcomm patent licenses, and when Qualcomm does license out its standards-essential patents, they must follow FRAND terms when doing so. On this particular point, Judge Koh found that Qualcomm’s royalty rates were “unreasonably high”, with the company sometimes charging “OEMs higher royalty rates when OEMs purchase rivals’ chips than when OEMs purchase Qualcomm’s chips, which further harms rivals.”

The ordered remedies are also designed to address Qualcomm’s exclusivity agreements, all but barring the company from entering into such agreements again. Along with the well-known case of Apple, Qualcomm was found to have entered into de facto agreements with LGE, BlackBerry, Samsung, and VIVO. Tangentially, Qualcomm is also prohibited from interfering with customers’ communications with regulators. In particular, Koh found that Qualcomm paid Samsung $100 Million as part of a settlement agreement to silence the company’s antitrust complaints.

Finally, in order to enforce the four major points above, Qualcomm is being ordered to undergo Federal monitoring for the next seven years. Specifically, the company will be required to report to the FTC about its compliance efforts on an annual basis. In justifying the monitoring order, Judge Koh noted that Qualcomm has a history of misbehavior, writing that “Qualcomm’s failure to alter its unlawful licensing practices despite years of foreign government investigations, findings, and fines suggests an obstinance that a monitoring provision may address.”

Ultimately however, it will be up to the US Ninth Circuit Court to decide whether any of these remedies go into effect. Qualcomm has announced that it will request a stay on the ruling while seeking an appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which would decide on whether it wants to hear the case, and if a stay will be issued in the interim. Should they decide to hear the case, then it’s likely that this case could go on for a couple of years longer still.

In the meantime, however, the ruling comes as the cellular modem market has already contracted under pressure. Intel famously bowed out of the 5G market just last month, as Apple and Qualcomm have settled their differences and Apple will resume being a Qualcomm customer. Meanwhile of the remaining competitors in the 5G market, Huawei has its own legal problems right now, leaving just Samsung, MediaTek, and some smaller players to compete against Qualcomm. Intel was the closest within the US in the 4G era – notably winning large portions of iPhone orders – so it remains to be seen how well the remaining competition can fare against a very dominant Qualcomm.

Source: US FTC vs. Qualcomm: Findings of Fact and Conclussions of Law

Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • patel21 - Wednesday, May 22, 2019 - link

    If this ruling goes down, it would boost Mediatek hugely. And we do indeed need competition badly.
  • albinakonovalova82 - Saturday, May 28, 2022 - link

    Hi, you are an unknown lawyer and you want people to come to you with the most interesting cases, such as copyright laws or something like that. But you are just a beginner then you need an SEO for lawyers team to help you develop your project to a new level
  • melgross - Wednesday, May 22, 2019 - link

    This is a very significant ruling, one that the appeals court isn’t likely to overrule. As usual, this link provides the most succinct and useful explanation:
  • Raqia - Wednesday, May 22, 2019 - link

    Quoting the likes of Florian Mueller (a biased blogger and Apple dev. and not a trained lawyer) when it comes to patent decisions is like asking the fox for his opinion of henhouse security. The decision by Koh utterly misunderstands the nature and scope of Qualcomm's inventions. Her draconian remedies are likely to be stayed, and her decision appealed in the end as the Supreme Court has demonstrated in Ohio v. AMEX that consumer harm has to be demonstrated in rulings.
  • Reflex - Wednesday, May 22, 2019 - link

    Gotta second this, Mueller has been a source of misinformation for well over a decade now, and is wrong an awful lot. I think this case has a good chance of holding up on appeal, Koh is a reasonable judge with a good track record historically, but it won't be because of Florian's takes.
  • Raqia - Wednesday, May 22, 2019 - link

    There were many glaring issues with the theories presented by the FTC. The market defined for this case was "premium standalone modems" where Apple was the only customer. Many chip manufacturers had their own designs which were integrated into SoCs in this era, and Qualcomm actually had declining market share, far from a monopoly when the issue is given proper context.

    Licensing costs for the software defined standards were also not proved to be higher as a result of Qualcomm's superior implementations in this artificial market. Qualcomm didn't dump modems below cost and discounts were often for valuable considerations outside of SEP licensing costs. OEMs had a choice of going with other implementers and it wasn't proved such OEMs' specific SEP licensing costs were higher as a result.

    There was also a complete omission of evidence from the end of 2016 onward when the only customer in this market Apple moved exclusively to Intel and stopped paying royalties entirely. It should be clear who had the market power here and how much of an advantage Intel had been granted; in the end, Apple's pivot back to Qualcomm was due to its technical superiority rather than Qualcomm's abuse of its FRAND obligations.
  • anactoraaron - Wednesday, May 22, 2019 - link

    Qualcomms superior implementations....

    Reads like qualcomm pr. Shill
  • Raqia - Wednesday, May 22, 2019 - link

    For the artificial market of standalone premium modems defined in the trial this was true. Don't take my word for it, ask Johnny Srouji of Apple:
  • ksec - Thursday, May 23, 2019 - link

    >Qualcomms superior implementations.... Reads like qualcomm pr. Shill

    So you are suggesting Qualcomm didn't have the best modem? Can you name one that perform anywhere as good or better?
  • ksec - Thursday, May 23, 2019 - link

    This, the Lexmark case continue to be reference which is a rather simple in concept, and yet being applied to the Qualcomm case which is 10 times more complex.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now