Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Takeaways from the Recent Qualcomm Decision
On May 21, California federal judge Lucy Koh ordered a sweeping injunction against cellphone chipmaker Qualcomm, requiring the company to renegotiate its licenses and alter its business model. Qualcomm's "no license, no chips" policy, which required cellphone manufacturers to license Qualcomm's patents in order to access Qualcomm's modem chips, was challenged by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in January 2017. Apple also sued Qualcomm for its patent-licensing practices but in April of this year, reached a surprising settlement on the first day of trial. See, Daniel Siegal, "Apple, Qualcomm Drop Multibillion-Dollar Licensing War," Law360 (April 16, 2019).
The case was long anticipated to have a significant impact on intellectual property law and the technology industry by clarifying the obligations of standard essential patent holders to license their technology on fair terms and deal with competitors. Given the case's potential impact, the Department of Justice took the unusual step of filing a statement of interest after the bench trial to encourage additional briefing on a potential remedy should the court side with the FTC. The DOJ's intervention, and the judge's ultimate decision, has exposed tensions between the DOJ and FTC, and within the FTC itself, and public scrutiny is far from over as the case heads to the Ninth Circuit on appeal.
Asserted Harm and Proposed Remedy
Judge Koh's decision put in place a permanent injunction that requires Qualcomm to license its modem chips on what are known as fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. Typically, a patent holder can unilaterally decide whether to license its patented technology and under what terms. However, Qualcomm's modem chips are "standard essential patents," which means the technology is necessary to meet cellular standards set by industry participants worldwide. Because a standard essential patent holder could prevent other industry participants from meeting this standard and thereby stifle competition, these patent holders are required to commit to licensing on FRAND terms. See, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, FTC v. Qualcomm, No. 17-CV-00220-LHK (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2019).
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
How AI Has Affected PR
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.