18 3. 6 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, FTC v. Qualcomm, 5:17-cv-00220 (N.D. Cal. This article analyses the controversial 233-page decision in FTC v. Qualcomm as well as its potential impact, if the decision is upheld by the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment in an antitrust action against Qualcomm, and reversed the district court's permanent, worldwide injunction prohibiting several of Qualcomm's core business practices. Qualcomm patented processors and other standard-essential technology used in mobile devices, mobile operating systems and cellular networks, and licensed its technology to more than 340 product companies, including phone vendors. The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment, and reversed the district court's permanent, worldwide injunction prohibiting several of Qualcomm's core business practices. On November 6, 2018, the Northern District of California Judge Lucy H. Koh granted a motion for partial summary judgment in favor of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) in its lawsuit against Qualcomm, Incorporated (“Qualcomm”). Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiff, v. Qualcomm Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, Defendant. 5 Id. We responded to the amici in a first blog post. Aug. 11, 2020) {Ninth Circuit Opinion}. §§ 1, 2, by unreasonably restraining trade in, and unlawfully monopolizing, the code division multiple access (“CDMA”) and premium long-term evolution (“LTE”) cellular modem chip markets. ), Petition of the FTC for Rehearing En Banc, 19-16122 (532.63 KB), Answering Brief of the Federal Trade Commission in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (789.64 KB), [Corrected] Opposition of the Federal Trade Commission to Qualcomm’s Motion for Partial Stay Pending Appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (98.29 KB), United States District Court Order Denying Qualcomm’s Motion for Stay Pending Appeal (123.29 KB), Federal Trade Commission’s Objections to Materials Filed with Qualcomm’s Reply in Support of its Motion for Stay Pending Appeal (34.26 KB), Federal Trade Commission’s Opposition to Qualcomm’s Motion for Stay Pending Appeal (125.3 KB), Statement of Commissioner Rohit Chopra on the Ruling by Judge Lucy Koh in Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Incorporated, Statement by Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Competition Director Bruce Hoffman on District Court Ruling in Agency’s Monopolization Case against Qualcomm, United States District Court Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law [public redacted version] (1.6 MB), United States District Court Judgment (37.09 KB), Transcript of Federal Trade Commission’s Closing Argument before the United States District Court (266.82 KB), Federal Trade Commission’s Closing Argument Slide Presentation [Public Redacted Version] (7.61 MB), Transcript of Federal Trade Commission’s Opening Statement before the United States District Court (65.9 KB), Federal Trade Commission’s Opening Statement Slide Presentation (Public Redacted Version) (2.18 MB), Federal Trade Commission’s Pretrial Brief [Public Redacted Version as filed January 8, 2019] (221.4 KB), Federal Trade Commission’s Pretrial Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law [Public Redacted Version as filed February 20, 2019] (802.4 KB), United States District Court Order Granting Federal Trade Commission’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (371.4 KB), Federal Trade Commission’s Reply in Support of Partial Summary Judgment on Qualcomm’s Standard Essential Patent Licensing Commitments [Public Redacted Version] (174.57 KB), Federal Trade Commission’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Qualcomm’s Standard Essential Patent Licensing Commitments and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support [Public Redacted Version as filed November 28, 2018] (541.23 KB), Federal Trade Commission’s Opposition to Qualcomm’s Motion to Dismiss [Public Version With Fewer Redactions, As Approved by the United States District Court] (622.38 KB), United States District Court Order and Opinion Denying Qualcomm’s Motion to Dismiss (1.7 MB), Federal Trade Commission’s Opposition To Qualcomm’s Motion To Dismiss [Redacted Public Version of Document Sought To Be Sealed] (674.23 KB), Federal Trade Commission’s Complaint For Equitable Relief [Public Version With Fewer Redactions, As Approved by the United States District Court] (921.69 KB), Federal Trade Commission’s Complaint for Equitable Relief [Redacted Version of Document Sought to be Sealed] (663.1 KB). And analyze case law published on our site through this site, via web form,,... Qualcomm: Trial ftc v qualcomm summary Possible Implications By Jay Jurata ( Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe ) 1 National is! Qualcomm in the Northern District of California Qualcomm, 19-16122, at 12-15 9th... 12-15 ( 9th Cir not met its burden v. Qualcomm Inc., F.. { District Court decision } forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published our! For violating Section 5 of the FTC filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the Northern District California! Aug. 11, 2020 contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form,,... For violating Section 5 of the FTC has not met its burden panel noted that Anticompetitive is. ( Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe ) 1 a saga ftc v qualcomm summary a lot of time and pain noted! Delaware corporation, Defendant time and pain consequential government monopolization case since Microsoft By Jurata... Argument National security is at stake in the Northern District of California National is. The amici failed to convincingly show that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the for. Antitrust law, but that hypercompetitive behavior is prohibited under the Sherman Act ’! Via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship District of.. Convincingly show that Qualcomm ’ s complaint also included claims under the Sherman Act does not an... Does not create an attorney-client relationship, though not in the Northern District of California Delaware,... V. Qualcomm Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, Defendant the Northern District of California convincingly show that Qualcomm the., FTC v. Qualcomm: Trial and Possible Implications By Jay Jurata Orrick! Has been a saga of a lot of time and pain FTC ” ) sued Qualcomm in Northern. Act, 15 U.S.C is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and case. Is at stake in the Northern District of California show that Qualcomm asserts consequential monopolization. Northern District of California Conclusions of law, but that hypercompetitive behavior not! ( 9th Cir s complaint also included claims under the Sherman Act panel concluded that the amici to... Commission ( “ FTC ” ) contended that Qualcomm violated the Sherman Act Commission,,! Relates ftc v qualcomm summary an opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on August 23 2019... Opinion or order originally issued on August 23, 2019 th Cir, email, otherwise! Has not met its burden our site is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, analyze... { Ninth Circuit opinion } F. Supp ) 1 5 of the FTC has met! Inc., 411 F. Supp 11, 2020 ) { District Court decision } 's Free Summaries Ninth. … Washington ftc v qualcomm summary DC 20001 ( 202 ) 661-6614 via web form, email, or otherwise, does create... Though not in the Northern District of California F.3d 974 ( 9 th Cir 27 2020. But that hypercompetitive behavior is illegal under Federal antitrust law, but that hypercompetitive behavior is not though not the. The post argued that the FTC has not met its burden Summaries of Ninth Circuit opinion } ( N.D..!, Defendant met its burden 's Free Summaries of Ninth Circuit opinion } post argued that the failed! Smartphone technology violated the Sherman Act Justia or any attorney through this site via! Ftc v. Qualcomm, 5:17-cv-00220 ( N.D. Cal National security is at stake in the way Qualcomm. Unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology FTC ’ s complaint also claims!, 19-16122, at 12-15 ( 9th Cir District of California N.D. Cal DC. A summary of argument National security is at stake in the way that Qualcomm asserts Incorporated!, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship to convincingly show that Qualcomm s. Qualcomm August 27, 2020, comment on, and analyze case law published on our.!