Apple Fights Qualcomm Patents With 5G And National Security Claims

Apple and Qualcomm’s long battle over patent licensing fees has taken a surprising turn due to 5G and national security concerns. The International Trade Commission hearing in Washington, D.C may block the import of certain iPhones that allegedly to violate Qualcomm patents.

A very peculiar claim by Apple says that banning iPhones made with patent-infringing Intel modems might threaten United States national security. Apple makes iPhones that alternate between Qualcomm and Intel modems, a ban affecting only Intel’s modem would increase Qualcomm business. In new generation iPhones the performance of Intel’s 4G cellular chips are not as good compared to Qualcomm’s processor but Apple have relied upon Intel’s modem because of differences over Qualcomm’s patent licensing fees. Intel is working on developing 5G modems at this point of time which can put US ahead of China in the race of 5G. So hurting Intel’s modem sale might affect the country’s national interest.

The gist of the lawsuits : Apple is saying that Qualcomm abused it’s monopolistic market position and charged the company five times more in payments than all other cellular patent licensors they have agreements with, combined, relating to baseband processors used in iPhones. The legal tussle between Apple and Qualcomm seems far from over but Qualcomm has high hopes that a victory will give it an edge in patent royalty negotiation with Apple which it has perceived as a very challenging customer.

Qualcomm denies that any wrong has been committed and slams Apple on numerous accounts. It also accused Apple of “giving government agencies false and misleading information and testimony” about the company, and for interfering with contracts it has with “manufacturers of Apple’s cellular devices.” In addition to this Qualcomm claims Apple has intentionally misrepresented the performance of iPhones with it’s modems.

It’s not fair to blame Apple for wanting to break away from the monopoly of Qualcomm on iPhone modems, and Qualcomm obviously wants to be omnipresent in the hands of maximum number of people .

Whatever be the result, our phone isn’t as good as it could be because of a very ugly corporate tussle.

Author: Ms. Tanuja Prasad, Associate at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys. In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at pratistha@khuranaandkhurana.com.

References:

[1] https://mashable.com/2017/04/11/qualcomm-suing-apple-affects-iphone-quality/#aat2fi8tpPq3s

[2] https://blog.ipleaders.in/ip-licensing-agreements/

[3] https://www.techiexpert.com/qualcomm-vs-apple-legal-fight-on-nsg-and-5g/

One thought on “Apple Fights Qualcomm Patents With 5G And National Security Claims”

  1. A classic case of possible Patent Infringement and Invalidation claims happening simultaneously. At the onset, Qualcomm stood the prima facie gainer with not having to opt for Invalidation Counter claims on Apple Patents’, effectively wanting to nullify Apple’s claims of Patent Infringement claiming Qualcomm’s Modem Licensing Fee includes 5G networking technology as well! An out of court settlement seems the viable solution at the end of it! Qualcomm seems to be the take away all in case of an out of court settlement along with any possible ban of Iphones with Intel Modems. Apple wanting to block Licensing revenues of Qualcomm is the only counter that they seem to hold on for the moment! An interesting case after the Apple/Samsung Patent War that ended again in an out of court previously! A licensing war it seems more than a patent war!! Awaiting a decision from the US Courts on this one though!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

eighteen − thirteen =

Archives

  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010