![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division
May 21, 2019, Decided; May 21, 2019, Filed
Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK
[*668] FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
[*669] Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") brings suit against Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated ("Qualcomm") for allegedly violating Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), and seeks permanent injunctive relief. Specifically, the FTC claims that Qualcomm has harmed competition in two markets for baseband processors, also called modem chips, through a set of interrelated Qualcomm practices. The FTC Act prohibits "[u]nfair methods of competition," which include violations of the Sherman Act. The FTC asserts that Qualcomm's conduct violates (1) Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1; (2) Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2; and (3) Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). ECF No. 966.
On April 3, 2017, Qualcomm moved to dismiss the FTC's Complaint. ECF No. 69. On June 26, 2017, the Court denied Qualcomm's motion to dismiss. ECF No. 134.
On August 30, 2018, the FTC moved for partial summary judgment on the question of whether Qualcomm's commitments to two standard setting organizations ("SSOs"), the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions ("ATIS") and the Telecommunications Industry Association ("TIA"), [**10] require Qualcomm to license to other modem chip suppliers on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms Qualcomm's patents that are essential to practicing the ATIS and TIA standards. ECF No. 792. On November 6, 2018, the Court granted the FTC's motion for partial summary judgment. ECF No. 931.
The Court held a 10-day bench trial in this matter beginning on January 4, 2019. The parties gave closing arguments on January 29, 2019. Having considered the evidence and arguments of counsel, the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court hereby enters the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
I. STIPULATED FACTS
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
411 F. Supp. 3d 658 *; 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86219 **; 2019-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P80,776; 2019 WL 2206013
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, Defendant.
Subsequent History: Appeal filed, 06/03/2019
Motion granted by FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21992 (9th Cir. Cal., July 23, 2019)
Motion granted by FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 27876 (9th Cir. Cal., Sept. 16, 2019)
Prior History: FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98632 (N.D. Cal., June 26, 2017)
license, modem, royalty, patent, rivals, handset, suppliers, email, anticompetitive, negotiations, customers, premium, monopoly, technology, antitrust, cellular, chipset, slide, phone, manufacturers, ASIC, terminate, strategic, competitors, rebates, licensees, exhaustion, software, holders, portfolio