Qualcomm’s loss in IP licensing

INTRODUCTION:

Qualcomm faced a setback from the US federal trade commission after it ruled that the latter is making undue advantage of its dominant position in the field of chip manufacturing, an essential part of cell phones. US District Court Judge Lucy Koh said in a long-awaited ruling that the company should must re-negotiate its terms related agreement with cell phone companies regarding supply of chips. It has to change its way of doing business for the purpose of building a sustainable market and to have a free flow of trade and avoiding favoritism to any particular party. The company holds patents right against the majority of chips used by the cell phone companies. This provides the exclusive right to Qualcomm with respect to determining terms of license provided to the cell phone manufacturing companies regarding usage of the chips.

ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES:

Qualcomm is accused of charging royalties which are in excess of the value of its patent right over the chips. It has been observed by the court that since Qualcomm is in a dominant position related to ownership of Standard essential patent of mobile chips, it should must commit to the licensing of their patents in reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, which has not been the case with Qualcomm. It has forced cell phone companies to adhere to its unnecessary conditions before the grant of license. Qualcomm engaged in anticompetitive behavior by refusing to sell chips to cell phone manufacturers that would not sign a separate license agreement that covered not only the patents in Qualcomm chips, but also Qualcomm’s SEPs in other manufacturers’ chips. Because of its strong position in the chip market, Qualcomm increased its licensing leverage by threatening to withhold (or actually withholding) chips that cell phone manufacturers needed.[1] The company has been further involved in anti-competitive practices by making De Facto exclusive dealing agreements with cell phone companies such as apple. It provided rebates to apple in return of exclusive supply agreement for the supply of chips to the cell phone company. The court found Qualcomm’s previous voluntary and profitable licensing deals with competitors particularly problematic and concluded that Qualcomm’s real justification for not licensing rivals was to prevent them from effectively competing.[2]  Qualcomm also blocked opportunities for rival companies in the field of the chip industry from making field testing and engineering collaboration with cell phone companies. Such practice of Qualcomm also hurts consumers as cell phone companies manufacture gradually increased the price for covering up excessive charge for a license to use chips manufactured by Qualcomm. The position of Qualcomm has been such that the manufactures had been left with no choice but to agree with their terms of licensing agreement.

REMEDIES PROVIDED BY THE COURT:

(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 the 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.[3]

Impact of the ruling: The court’s decision serves blow to Qualcomm as the company had a plan of expanding its business in the field of the 5G chip market. Now onwards, the company will have to reduce pricing of license related to chip manufactured by them. It has to restrain itself from taking undue advantage of its dominant position as a company has been restricted from making any unwarranted terms in the agreement related to the supply of chips. The decision also opens the market for rival companies to get greater access to the mobile market. Several analysts have also been saying that in the coming day’s price of the cell phone might get reduced owing to lower licensing fees.

Author:  Amit Ranjan, Legal intern at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys. In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at Ankit Kumar <ankit@iiprd.com>

References:

[1] https://www.pepperlaw.com/publications/qualcomm-loss-raises-risks-for-substantial-market-participants-ip-licensing-decisions-and-ability-to-provide-loyalty-discounts-2019-06-07/

[2] https://www.pepperlaw.com/publications/qualcomm-loss-raises-risks-for-substantial-market-participants-ip-licensing-decisions-and-ability-to-provide-loyalty-discounts-2019-06-07/

[3] http://www.fosspatents.com/2019/05/breaking-news-federal-trade-commission.html

Leave a Reply

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

fifteen − 13 =

Archives

  • 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