FTC vs. Qualcomm-More than meets the eye in Ninth Circuit decision

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) gave a landmark decision in favor of Qualcomm, on Aug 11 th 2020, in the long running antitrust case brought about by FTC. This was a highly anticipated outcome in the multi-year saga, which saw fortunes go back and forth between the parties. The detailed opinion written by Judge Callahan, representing the panel of three judges, is a tell-a-tale of how FTC mischaracterized Qualcomm’s business model, and how the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (lower court) misjudged the case. The ruling vacated all the decisions of the lower court, including the partial summary judgement. I spoke to Don Rosenberg , EVP, and General Counsel of Qualcomm, who of course was quite pleased with the outcome. He said, “we felt vindicated by the appeals court’s ruling and are looking forward to continue bringing path-breaking innovation like 5G to life.”

Ninth Circuit’s decision was not just relevant for this case, but clarifies a whole slew of long-standing issues, and will set a defining precedent for IPR licensing in the future, especially from an antitrust point of view.

Side note: If you would like to know the full background of the case, refer to my earlier articles in the FTC vs. Qualcomm article series.

Well expected outcome

The recent developments in the case had made me predict such ruling . The Ninth Circuit’s stay of the lower court’s decision, and the language used in that order, the tone of the in-person hearing, and the deep skepticism the panel showed in their questioning made it amply clear the direction the panel was tilting.

The case indeed had a lot of unusual and rather interesting turn of events from beginning to end. It was filed in the last days of the last administration with only a few FTC commissioners in the office. One of those commissioners who was opposed to this move wrote a scathing opinion in The Wall Street Journal, publicly disparaging the case. The new incoming chair of FTC recused himself from the case, which left the case on autopilot with FTC staff taking charge. The instigators, major supporters and witnesses moved away from the case midway-Apple and Huawei settled their licensing disputes with Qualcomm, Intel exited the modem market. The US Department of Justice, which shares the antitrust responsibility with FTC, went strongly against FTC, it even became a party to the hearing and pleaded against the case. But the biggest surprise for me was the ferocity with which the Ninth Circuit tore down and reversed every decision of the lower court, including the summary judgement.

Highlights of the ruling

This indeed was a complex technical case, where the judges had to quickly develop full understanding of the industry. Rosenberg highlighted the challenges of appellate court judges “They have to work on the record that somebody else has created for them, including lots of documentary evidence, witness testimony, lower court’s assertions and more” he added “considering that, the judges did an amazing job, cutting through the noise and really getting to the core issues and opine on them.” The interesting thing I found reading through more than 50-page ruling is, how it summarized and reduced the case into five key questions:

“…OEM-level licensing policy, .. was not an anticompetitive violation of the Sherman Act.” “…to the extent Qualcomm breached any of its #FRAND commitments, the remedy for such a breach was in contract or tort law…” “…”no license, no chips” policy did not impose an anticompetitive surcharge on rivals…”= “…We now hold that the district court went beyond the scope of the Sherman Act…” “ Thus, it [Qualcomm] does not “compete”-in the antitrust sense-against OEMs like Apple and Samsung in these product markets. Instead, these OEMs are @Qualcomm’s customers…” “…OEM level licensing was not “to sacrifice short-term benefits in order to obtain higher profits in the long run from the exclusion of competition,” “…while Qualcomm’s policy toward OEMs is “no license, no chips,” its policy toward rival chipmakers could be characterized as “no license, no problem…” “…even if we were to accept the district court’s conclusion that Qualcomm royalty rates are unreasonable, we conclude that the district court’s surcharging theory still fails as a matter of law and “…neither the Sherman Act nor any other law prohibits companies from (1) licensing their SEPs independently from their chip sales; (2) limiting their chip customer base to licensed OEMs…” “…Our job is not to condone or punish Qualcomm for its success, but rather to assess whether the FTC has met its burden under the rule of reason … We conclude that the FTC has not met its burden…”

  1. Whether Qualcomm’s “no license, no chips” policy amounts to “anticompetitive conduct against OEMs” and an “anticompetitive practice in patent license negotiations”
  2. Whether Qualcomm’s refusal to license rival chipmakers violates both its FRAND commitments and an antitrust duty to deal under § 2 of the Sherman Act
  3. Whether Qualcomm’s “exclusive deals” with Apple “foreclosed a ‘substantial share’ of the modem chip market” in violation of both Sherman Act provisions
  4. Whether Qualcomm’s royalty rates are “unreasonably high” because they are improperly based on its market share and handset price instead of the value of its patents
  5. Whether Qualcomm’s royalties, in conjunction with its “no license, no chips” policy, “impose an artificial and anticompetitive surcharge” on its rivals’ sales, “increasing the effective price of rivals’ modem chips” and resulting in anticompetitive exclusivity

The panel decided that FTC and lower courts were wrong on all counts. Rosenberg said that the opinion gave very logical, persuasive and point to point arguments with obviously relevant citations to refute all those assertions. Here are some of the excerpts from the opinion:

What this means for the industry

This indeed was a landmark decision with long ranging consequences. It surely clears the clouds of uncertainty that were hanging over Qualcomm’s licensing business for a long time. It will also be a welcome decision for many other patent holders and licensors. The precedent this case has set will be used for resolving patent related antitrust issues for a long time to come. Here are some of the specific things I think are relevant:

  • Device-level licensing is not anti-competitive
  • FRAND and patent violations are outside the purview of the antitrust law, and are better handled under the contract law
  • Royalties of one company do not have to be in-line with the rates other companies charge
  • Surcharge on competitors may have to be direct, at least the “effective surcharges” from complex inferencing do not work

Rosenberg said “Qualcomm’s novel licensing model and its policies have now gone through intense global legal litigation and have successfully proven themselves. Now we are more confident and working hard to innovate and to expand the reach of 5G and bring its benefits to the world.”

What is next for the case?

The FTC has not made comments on its next steps. It does have a couple of options. It could ask for what is called an “en banc hearing” in which the whole Ninth Circuit bench (or a major part of it) is asked to hear the case. But for that to happen, a majority of the judges would have to vote to agree to the hearing. Even after the en banc hearing, either party could knock on the doors of the Supreme Court and ask whether it would be willing to hear the case.

But, keeping all the theoretical options aside, I think a unanimous verdict, ferocious opinion coupled with the fact that all of the lower court’s decisions were vacated, makes it very less likely for FTC to keep pushing the case further. Since the instigators and supporters have also moved on, there is no incentive for anybody to keep it going. The FTC might ask for an en banc hearing anyway as a face-saving step as that does not require significant effort from its side. Since en banc is a large effort, and many other judges will have to spend a lot of time and energy to fully understand such a highly technical and complex case to give any verdict, I doubt they will grant it. Hence, I am confident that in many respects , this is the end of the road for the case.

As we await the FTC’s response, for more articles like this, and up-to-date analysis of the latest mobile and tech industry news, sign-up for our monthly newsletter at TantraAnalyst.com/Newsletter , or listen to our Tantra’s Mantra podcast .

Originally published at https://www.rcrwireless.com on August 18, 2020.

Related Posts

FTC vs. Qualcomm: What do skeptical appeals panel, defiant defendants, and dwindling arguments…

FTC vs. Qualcomm — The meaning and relevance of FRAND commitment

FTC vs. Qualcomm-FTC’s changed tactic undermines its confidence in the case (Analyst Angle)

FTC vs. Qualcomm — Support pours in for Qualcomm from all sides in its appeals process

FTC vs. Qualcomm: Finally saner senses prevail with the appellate court’s decision

Why FTC vs. Qualcomm ruling is not just about a company but about the country!

The fate of FTC’s case after Qualcomm’s settlement with Apple

FTC vs. Qualcomm: A proxy for China vs. the USA?

FTC vs. Qualcomm: Is this what the war on innovation looks like?

The chronicles of 3GPP Rel. 17: Part 1-Sowing the seeds

Chronicles of 3GPP Rel. 17 Part 2: Defining the future of 5G

Demystifying cellular patents and licensing Part 1: How cellular standards are created

Demystifying cellular patents and licensing Part 2: Patents are a monetization tool for innovators

Demystifying cellular patents and licensing Part 3: All patents are not created equal (Analyst…

When it comes to patents, quality always beats quantity: Demystifying cellular patents and…

Made for each other’-Why integrated modem-RF system approach is a must for 5G device supremacy…

The inside story of 3GPP-Who are the unsung heroes that create the standards?

Would you pay $1.41 for 15 minutes of your iPhone battery-life?

Another day, another Apple vs. Qualcomm trial

5G FWA Broadband: A Better Option For Urbanites, Increased Access For Ruralites

Apple Will Be Hard-Pressed to Build a Rock Star 5G Modem

Always-On, Always-Connected PCs Are Redefining Personal Computing

5G Vendors Step on the Gas at MWC

5G at Mobile World Congress: Critical milestones achieved, more to come (Analyst Angle)

Are you skeptical about 5G millimeter wave?

What Is The Killer Use Case For 5G?

Living On The Wireless Edge With AI And 5G

How Photorealistic VR And 5G May Change The Future Of Media

With Snapdragon 8cx, ARM processors graduate to performance computing, challenging the dominance…

Analyst Angle: Confused about which version of 3GPP R15 will be used for commercialization of 5G?

Analyst Angle: Did Intel’s failure to deliver on XMM 8060 make Apple delay iPhone 5G?

Is Millimeter Wave Just Another Band for 5G?

Surface Pro X-Excellent productivity notebook heralding a new era in laptops (Analyst Angle)

Wondering whether all of those 5G performance claims are true-Now we have conclusive proof!

My verdict after extensively testing Sprint in Chicago-It’s a 5G network that delivers

Why I Bought a Galaxy S10 5G

Qualcomm: the Future of 5G Flows on its Innovations

Are you skeptical about 5G millimeter wave?

What Is The Killer Use Case For 5G?

Is Millimeter Wave Just Another Band for 5G?

Tech Industry Analyst, Forbes Contributor, EETimes & RCR Wireless writer, covering 5G, AI, IoT, Wi-Fi and everything wireless. Founder www.TantraAnalyst.com

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store