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
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
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.
A Lawyer's System for Active Reading
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.