After that, Apple went to Intel. Our Analysis of the Ninth Circuit Panel Decision Reversing FTC v. Qualcomm August 27, 2020 . That is not a crime; it is the American way. 2019).. On September 25, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requested a rehearing en banc from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in an antitrust case against Qualcomm. The recent Ninth Circuit panel decision reversing the district court’s judgment in FTC v. Qualcomm, Inc., has important implications for the role of antitrust in standard essential patent (SEP) licensing. Because the FTC did not meet its initial burden under the rule of reason framework, the panel was less critical of Qualcomm’s procompetitive justifications for its OEM -level licensing policy—which, in any case, appeared to be reasonable and consistent with current industry practice. Qualcomm has exercised market dominance in the 3G and 4G cellular modem chip markets for many years, and its business practices have played a powerful and disruptive role in those markets, as well as in the broader cellular services and technology markets. 9th Circ. Qualcomm’s overall goal is to drive the technology out into the world and build optimized mobile devices and optimized networks that deliver the performance that everybody expects. by Daniel Newman | September 25, 2020. You may opt-out by. Companies like Qualcomm spend a much higher percentage on “R” than, let’s say, Broadcom who trumpets “R&D.”. (CN) – After a long, intense and spirited hearing in the Ninth Circuit on Thursday, a three-judge panel will decide whether the world’s leading chip manufacturer is illegally distorting the market or simply outfoxing the competition. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) gave a landmark decision in favor of Qualcomm, on Aug 11 th 2020, in the long running antitrust case brought about by FTC. I have written a lot about the case since its inception and thought it was time to write about a few interesting aspects of the case. Before Patrick started the firm, he spent over 20 years as a high-tech strategy, product, and marketing executive who has addressed the personal computer, mobile, graphics, and server ecosystems. Qualcomm then sued Apple and its ODMs for non-payment. Note: Moor Insights & Strategy writers and editors may have contributed to this article. Moorhead also has significant board experience. Disclosure: Moor Insights & Strategy, like all research and analyst firms, provides or has provided paid research, analysis, advising, or consulting to many high-tech companies in the industry, including 8x8, Advanced Micro Devices, Amazon, Applied Micro, ARM, Aruba Networks, AT&T, AWS, A-10 Strategies, Bitfusion, Blaize, Calix, Cisco Systems, Clear Software, Cloudera, Clumio, Cognitive Systems, CompuCom, Dell, Dell EMC, Dell Technologies, Diablo Technologies, Digital Optics, Dreamchain, Echelon, Ericsson, Extreme Networks, Flex, Foxconn, Frame, Fujitsu, Gen Z Consortium, Glue Networks, GlobalFoundries, Google (Nest-Revolve), Google Cloud, HP Inc., Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Honeywell, Huawei Technologies, IBM, Ion VR, Inseego, Intel, Interdigital, Jabil Circuit, Konica Minolta, Lattice Semiconductor, Lenovo, Linux Foundation, MapBox, Mavenir, Marseille Inc, Mayfair Equity, Meraki (Cisco), Mesophere, Microsoft, Mojo Networks, National Instruments, NetApp, Nightwatch, NOKIA (Alcatel-Lucent), Nortek, Novumind, NVIDIA, ON Semiconductor, ONUG, OpenStack Foundation, Oracle, Poly, Panasas, Peraso, Pexip, Pixelworks, Plume Design, Portworx, Pure Storage, Qualcomm, Rackspace, Rambus, Rayvolt E-Bikes, Red Hat, Residio, Samsung Electronics, SAP, SAS, Scale Computing, Schneider Electric, Silver Peak, SONY, Springpath, Spirent, Splunk, Sprint, Stratus Technologies, Symantec, Synaptics, Syniverse, Synopsys, Tanium, TE Connectivity, TensTorrent, Tobii Technology, Twitter, Unity Technologies, UiPath, Verizon Communications, Vidyo, VMware, Wave Computing, Wellsmith, Xilinx, Zebra, Zededa, and Zoho which may be cited in this article, Patrick was ranked the #1 analyst out of 8,000 in the ARInsights Power 100 rankings and the #1 most cited analyst as ranked by Apollo Research. Guest post by University of Utah College of Law Professor Jorge L. Contreras.. It has also “acted with sharp elbows—as businesses often do.” Tension Envelope Corp. v. JBM Envelope Co., 876 F.3d 1112, 1122 (8th Cir. On August 11, 2020, a Ninth Circuit panel reversed the District Court for the Northern District of California ’s judgment in FTC v. Qualcomm, Inc. The regulator asked the U.S. 2017).”, “Our job is not to condone or punish Qualcomm for its success, but rather to assess whether the FTC has met its burden under the rule of reason to show that Qualcomm’s practices have crossed the line to “conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself.” Spectrum Sports, 506 U.S. at 458. The only thing the FTC ever showed was that there was a theoretical possibility that it could happen in the future. The court said: “Anticompetitive behavior is illegal under federal antitrust law. Yesterday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the FTC’s request to rehear its case against Qualcomm which leaves intact the Appeals Court ruling that found Qualcomm not guilty on all counts of anti-competitive behavior. Qualcomm’s licensing model has been at the center of the mobility industry, with over 140,000 patents and patent applications worldwide. This effectively puts an end to the FTC’s dubious antitrust case against the San Diego tech giant. On Aug. 11, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit said the FTC failed to establish that Qualcomm’s practices had an anticompetitive effect on the cellular chip market. v. Qualcomm, 411 F.Supp.3d 658, (N.D. Cal. Tom Goldstein, representing Qualcomm, delivers remarks to the three judges overseeing the appeal. Patrick founded Moor. As you would expect, Qualcomm was elated. All Rights Reserved, This is a BETA experience. He has nearly 30 years of experience including 15 years as an executive at high tech companies leading strategy, product management, product marketing, and corporate marketing, including three industry board appointments. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (San Francisco) today overturned a lower court’s injunction prohibiting certain business practices of chip manufacturer Qualcomm, Inc., arguing, among other things, that the district court inappropriately considered effects in the broader cellular services market. The Ninth Circuit characterized Qualcomm's "no license, no chips" policy as a policy of "no license, no problem" as far as rival chipmakers were concerned. F.T.C. Three weeks ago, Qualcomm won its battle with the FTC in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Moorhead is also a contributor for both Forbes, CIO, and the Next Platform. The Ninth Circuit held that the FTC failed to establish a Sherman Act violation arising from Qualcomm’s breach of its contractual SSO obligations absent evidence that the breach impaired the opportunities of its rivals in the CDMA and LTE chip markets. Qualcomm’s “no license, no chips” policy is OK, as well, as it does not impact rival modem maker’s opportunities. Patrick was ranked the #1 analyst out of 8,000 in the ARInsights Power 100 rankings and the #1 most cited analyst as ranked by Apollo Research. SAN DIEGO, Aug. 23, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- Qualcomm Incorporated (NASDAQ: QCOM) today announced that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted in its entirety Qualcomm's request for a partial stay, pending appeal, of an injunction from the U.S. District Court for … I chalk it up as innovation and investment. (CN) — A Ninth Circuit panel ruled Tuesday that chipmaker Qualcomm did not engage in antitrust behavior, handing the technology company a major win by reversing a lower court decision with potentially devastating consequences to its business. In August, the Ninth Circuit ruled against the FTC in its decision regarding whether Qualcomm violated the Sherman Act. This resulted in the FTC charging Qualcomm for anticompetitive practices, and Apple suing Qualcomm and withholding payments for Qualcomm intellectual property that same week. Three weeks ago, Qualcomm won its battle with the FTC in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Qualcomm has won a major victory against the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in an antitrust and anti-competitive lawsuit.The Ninth Circuit Court of … The court went so far as to say that Qualcomm’s business model is “chip-supplier neutral.”, Qualcomm’s special deal with Apple had no impact on hurting competition, and the court noted that Apple terminated the contracts. In particular, the FTC had an issue with Qualcomm’s “no license, no chips” policy, under which it did not sell chips to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) unless they paid for a separate patent license, typically a standard essential patent. Specifically, the FTC asserted that Qualcomm used its dominant market position to set forth policies that hindered competition and further solidified its purported monopoly position. Qualcomm builds prototypes, tests them, conducts simulations to prove the technology before the standards process finalizes designs. The News: The U.S. Federal Trade Commission on Friday filed a motion to rehear an antitrust lawsuit it lost on appeal against Qualcomm Inc. This requires implementation innovation  and engineering/tech support to many members of the ecosystem/value chain to ensure that the end-to-end system is optimized to provide power efficiency, performance, and Quality of Service. “D” as in “development” are the expenditures that productize IP for sale in the form of a chip. The Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in FTC v.Qualcomm (9th Cir., Aug. 11, 2020) is generally viewed as a resounding victory for Qualcomm. iPhone XS, Pixel 3, OnePlus 6T and 20 other phones without headphone jacks See all photos The Ninth Circuit vacated the Northern District of California’s decision and reversed the permanent injunction on a few of Qualcomm’s business practices. As a result, Qualcomm collected large royalties and allegedly violated patent FRAND terms. The district court held that Qualcomm had an antitrust duty to license its patents to direct competitors, however the appellate panel disagreed finding the argument that the purported anticompetitive surcharge as royalty rates did not constitute antitrust violations and that the lower court did not establish “a cogent theory of anticompetitive harm.” The Ninth Circuit also found that the FTC’s argument that Qualcomm violated FRAND terms failed because the FTC did not show harm. In August, the Ninth Circuit ruled against the FTC in its decision regarding whether Qualcomm violated the Sherman Act. Hypercompetitive behavior is not. I’ll admit, while I was surprised Qualcomm was even charged by the FTC (see my analysis here), I was even more surprised with the guilty verdict by Judge Koh. Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own. © 2021 Forbes Media LLC. On 5G, Qualcomm’s early foundational inventions drove the standards, with 5G R&D efforts starting more than ten years ago, and that adds up to Qualcomm having invested over $61 billion in R&D, 20+% of revenue every year. He served as an executive board member of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), the American Electronics Association (AEA) and chaired the board of the St. David’s Medical Center for five years, designated by Thomson Reuters as one of the 100 Top Hospitals in America. According to investigative reports, in 2014, “Apple allegedly 'plotted' to hurt Qualcomm years before it sued the company.” We also know that Apple and Samsung had a “common interest” agreement to work closely with FTC. Apple then settled with Qualcomm which included paying Qualcomm for the years it had withheld payment. He runs MI&S but is a broad-based analyst covering a wide variety of topics including the software-defined datacenter and the Internet of Things (IoT), and Patrick is a deep expert in client computing and semiconductors. A 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel found Qualcomm’s business practices are legal under anti-monopoly laws; The FTC is seeking reconsideration by the full court. Qualcomm should not have to directly license its modem competitors like Huawei, Samsung, Intel (at the time), Unisoc (Spreadtrum), or MediaTek. Without any evidence of harm to competition, increased prices to consumers, or a decrease in innovation, Judge Koh still ruled Qualcomm guilty. I was always of the opinion that the FTC never showed any evidence that any of these three conditions met the bar for Qualcomm. Lastly, the FTC alleged that the appellate panel “seriously erred” when it dismissed the district court’s “findings about the harm to OEMs – including higher prices that are passed on to retail consumers – because OEMs ‘are Qualcomm’s customers, not its competitors.’” The FTC argued that the Ninth Circuit erroneously believed “that such harm is not cognizable because it ‘falls outside the relevant antitrust markets.’” However, the FTC claimed that this is a misstatement of the law. On Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit filed an order whereby Circuit Judge Johnnie B. Rawlinson and Circuit Judge Consuelo M. Callahan vote to deny the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) petition for a rehearing en banc in its suit against cellular chip manufacturer and telecommunications giant Qualcomm and District Judge Stephen Joseph Murphy, III of the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation, so recommends. Qualcomm, on the other hand, showed that: Qualcomm showed real data, not imaginary or theoretical data. Qualcomm, FTC Spar at 9th Circuit Over What Makes a Monopoly. Wait, I thought there was no competition (sarcasm added. Additionally, the FTC proffered that the Ninth Circuit mischaracterized the surcharge as “chip neutral” and that “‘by definition’ a facially ‘neutral’ charge cannot distort competition.” However, the FTC claimed that this is based “on an erroneous premise… that an OEM pays the same surcharge ‘whether an OEM buys Qualcomm’s chips or a rival’s chips,’” which, according to the FTC, is not true. Qualcomm is represented by Cravath, Swaine & Moore; Goldstein & Russell; Keker Van Nest & Peters; Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati; and Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. The Ninth Circuit found that “Qualcomm has shown, at minimum, the presence of serious questions on the merits of the district court’s determination that Qualcomm has an antitrust duty to license its SEPs to rival chip suppliers.” The Ninth Circuit considered the duty to deal Aspen Skiingcase on which the district court based its decision to be “at or near the outer boundary of [Sherman Act] liability.” Further, the competition brawl between the two U.S. competition agencies — Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and … The panel held that Qualcomm’s conduct—(a) refusing to … The company has asserted its economic muscle “with vigor, imagination, devotion, and ingenuity.” Topco Assocs., 405 U.S. at 610. The court unanimously reversed the district court’s judgment (led by Judge Koh) and vacated its global injunction against the company’s business practices, which had forced it to license IP directly to its SOC and modem competitors. The panel concluded that to the extent Qualcomm breached Qualcomm in October asked the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals to allow it to appeal Koh's decision. I am not a lawyer, but I have been involved over the past 30 years in some of the largest antitrust cases in technology, given my tenure at some of the top tech companies. He is grounded in reality as he has led the planning and execution and had to live with the outcomes. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was crystal clear on its ruling: Given the court went out of its way to talk about the differences between anticompetitive and hypercompetitive behavior, I thought it best to let you read what the court said about this rather than paraphrase. The FTC could argue the same if it had to appeal, but whether the FTC, given its internal stalemate, … It then optimizes the technology when it makes its way out into the market to ensure peak performance with real carriers on real networks and devices. This was a highly anticipated outcome in the multi-year saga, which saw fortunes go back and forth between the parties. I think it is critical for the sake of this conversation to split “R” and “D.” “R” as in “research” is highly risky and can start a decade in advance of any tangible product coming out of it. We conclude that the FTC has not met its burden.”. Yes, Qualcomm is very competitive and took enormous research risks and spent over $61B in R&D to get there. The FTC is represented by its own counsel. What is clear to me is that having a monopoly, and using that monopolistic power to stifle innovation, increase costs, and harm competitors are two very different things. The FTC averred that Qualcomm unreasonably restrained trade and illegally monopolized the code division multiple access (CDMA) and premium long-term evolution (LTE) cellular chip markets. Qualcomm is also very pleased that the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied the FTC’s petition for rehearing. Should the Ninth Circuit decide along similar lines as the Third Circuit, Qualcomm will point to other circuits (such as the Fifth Circuit) to argue there's a circuit split. The Ninth Circuit has thrown out an antitrust ruling against Qualcomm, allowing it to continue bundling chips and patents in a way that phone makers and the FTC … I believe one of the most notable things that came out of the case was the distinction between anticompetitive and hypercompetitive behavior. Reverses FTC Win On Qualcomm Licensing The Ninth Circuit on Tuesday reversed the Federal Trade Commission's win in its case accusing Qualcomm of … Thus, the appellate panel held that Qualcomm’s patent royalty is shielded from antitrust scrutiny, this facially neutral fee cannot harm competition, and the Ninth Circuit dismissed the district court’s findings about harm to Qualcomm’s customers. ), Petition of the FTC for Rehearing En Banc, 19-16122 (532.63 KB) November 22, 2019 Answering Brief of the Federal Trade Commission in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (789.64 KB) The quality of those wireless patents is high, as I researched here. By Mike Freeman Sep. 25, 2020 Notably, the problem is that Qualcomm’s “royalties” conceal a chip-driven surcharge that is the economic equivalent of the fees in United Shoe and Caldera…Just like those fees, the surcharge is extracted through monopoly power and penalizes purchases of competing products,” which the FTC argued is anticompetitive. This leaves intact the panel’s unanimous decision which reversed and vacated the district court ruling in its entirety. As a result, the FTC sought a rehearing en banc. In September, the FTC filed a petition for a rehearing en banc. However, the FTC claimed that the Ninth Circuit the “panel declared that because Qualcomm has concealed its surcharge in a ‘patent royalty,’ the entire payment is subject to challenge only ‘in patent law, not antitrust law.’” Moreover, this contradicts the economic substance reasoning. Qualcomm’s stock plummeted to $53 (today $121), which led to a hostile takeover attempt by Broadcom. FTC Files Unlikely Petition to 9th Circuit to Revisit Favorable Qualcomm Ruling. At the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the three-judge panel unanimously overruled every one of Judge Koh’s rulings, citing the vast difference between being anticompetitive and hypercompetitive. The appellate order stated that “[t]he full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc.” As a result, the request is denied. In a strongly worded opinion, the Ninth Circuit reversed the entirety of the district court’s holding, which found that Qualcomm violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The FTC argued that the panel “disregarded precedent” by “elevating patent-law labels over economic substance,” “holding that facially ‘neutral’ fees cannot violate the antitrust laws,” and “holding that harms to Qualcomm’s customers are ‘beyond the scope of antitrust law’ and demanding a showing of ‘direct’ harm to competitors.” Specifically, the FTC claimed that the Supreme Court “repeatedly instructed that the Sherman Act ‘is aimed at substance rather than form’…and that court must look beyond labels to ‘the economic reality of the relevant transactions.’” As a result, the FTC asserted that the appellate court should have determined that the so-called patent royalties were not royalties, but rather to secure its chip monopoly, as Judge Lucy Koh in the Northern District of California found. So now that the courts found Qualcomm not guilty of anticompetitive behavior, how did Qualcomm get so dominant? ). I wrote a bit on the company’s orchestrator role here and here. And finally, the Ninth Circuit -- or the FTC had alleged that exclusive dealings between Qualcomm and Apple -- exclusive arrangements -- was anticompetitive. The News: Qualcomm has been exonerated by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, with the Court yesterday declining the Federal Trade Commission’s petition to “rehear” arguments against Qualcomm. Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Incorporated (9th Cir. Only a handful of companies in the world do the in-depth and years-ahead R&D required for these technologies. To keep investors at bay, Qualcomm commit to $1B in cost reductions and had to lay off thousands of  employees, disrupting family’s lives. Qualcomm in 2011 and 2013 had signed agreements with Apple where Qualcomm offered a lot of money, billions of dollars in incentive payments, which were dependent on Apple sourcing its iPhone chips exclusively from Qualcomm. EY & Citi On The Importance Of Resilience And Innovation, Impact 50: Investors Seeking Profit — And Pushing For Change, Intel Cranks CES 2021 To 11 With Massive Slew Of 11th Gen Core Processors, Lenovo Launches A Plethora Of Innovative Consumer And Enterprise Devices At CES 2021, HP Launches Premium Business Devices To Enhance Collaboration Experience, Dell’s New Enterprise PC’s, Displays, And Software Shows Commitment To Collaboration, Intel’s Mobileye Presents Plan For Worldwide AV Rollout At CES 2021, Samsung Galaxy Unpacked 2021 Brings Style And Performance To S21 Smartphones And Buds Pro Earbuds, How SAP Data Technologies Work, On The Inside, Broadcom And IBM Deliver New Levels Of Cyber-Resilient Storage, Why Gelsinger’s Departure Could Accelerate a VMware Spinoff, Qualcomm Acquires NUVIA To Accelerate Its Future CPUs With Support From 18 Partners, price per GB of cellular services decreased from $47 to $6 from 2010-2017, annual data cellular traffic increased nearly 20X from 2011-2016, 4G download speeds increased 12X from 2012-2018, 4G modem chip prices declined from $22 in 2012 to $12 in 2018. from 2011 to 2016, Qualcomm royalties charged to Apple barely increased, while Apple’s sales more than tripled. Qualcomm also serves as an “orchestrator” across the industry, a role that mostly goes unnoticed. I had never seen anything like it in first-world courtrooms, maybe except for maybe Korea. It started as a research and tech transfer company 35 years ago and was licensing CDMA wireless tech before it was selling chips. In general, the FTC or the DOJ must prove that the latter actually happened to get an guilty verdict. I write about disruptive companies, technologies and usage models. Cellular and mobile technologies are complex, and each generation grows more complex. On August 11, 2020, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the Federal Trade Commission's district court victory in its suit challenging Qualcomm's licensing practices for its... | … Patrick founded Moor Insights & Strategy based on in his real-world world technology experiences with the understanding of what he wasn’t getting from analysts and consultants. 9th Circuit Qualcomm Opinion: ... to make out the FTC’s claim, Qualcomm’s licensing tactics would have had to harm competition in the licensing market or … Unlike other analyst firms, Moorhead held executive positions leading strategy, marketing, and product groups. Qualcomm is fundamentally a technology R&D company. The court said if the customers do not like the price of the IP, they should bring it up in contract court to show how it is not fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND). Qualcomm does and continues to license ODMs and CMs.