Hyper-competitive behavior is not. Qualcomm. The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) contends that Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) violated the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. The FTC brings its Complaint against Qualcomm under § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTCA”), which prohibits “[u]nfair methods of competition in or … at 44, 128-29, 157. The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) sued Qualcomm in January 2017 for violating Section 5 of the FTC Act. Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Maureen K. Ohlhausen In the Matter of Qualcomm, Inc. FTC Charges Qualcomm With Monopolizing Key Semiconductor Device Used in Cell Phones. At that time, she granted the FTC's motion for partial summary judgment in its suit against Qualcomm. ), 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). 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. May 21, 2019) {District Court Decision}. Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Inc., 411 F. Supp. The Justice Department took the unusual step of wading into the FTC-Qualcomm case early this month, asking for a hearing on any penalty against Qualcomm in … Id. Docket for Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Incorporated, 5:17-cv-00220 — Brought to you by the RECAP Initiative and Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to … Qualcomm licenses its patented technologies to more than 340 companies, particularly to original equipment manufacturers (hereinafter OEMs) such as Apple, Samsung, Motorola. The FTC won. In January 2017, the FTC filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the Northern District of California. In January 2017, the FTC filed a complaint in federal court seeking to enjoin Qualcomm's standard essential patent (SEP) licensing practices for certain technology used in wireless communications semiconductor microchips. In an ongoing series of posts by both regular bloggers and guests, Truth on the Market offers analysis of the FTC v.Qualcomm antitrust case. 1. 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 After a vladeckd@georgetown.edu Counsel for Amici Curiae 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. Case Summary. 3 FTC v. Qualcomm, 19-16122, at 12-15 (9th Cir. Among other things, the FTC claimed that Qualcomm used a dominant market position to impose onerous and anticompetitive supply and licensing terms on cell phone manufacturers and to weaken competitors. On May 21, 2019, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California found that Qualcomm violated the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act, … 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 stage is set for Feb 13 th, 2020, hearing of FTC vs. Qualcomm antitrust case at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit). The Court noted that many of Qualcomm's premium LTE modem chips are required by "OEMs- producing premium handsets" and that there are no "available sub… Case: 19-16122, 08/23/2019, ID: 11409171, DktEntry: 77 … Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. at 877 & n.2. FTC v. Qualcomm. 8 See id. Decision Reversing FTC v. Qualcomm August 27, 2020 . Nearly two years after the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) brought its unfair competition case against Qualcomm, the case has proceeded to trial. Yesterday, Judge Koh of the U.S. District Court Northern District of California entered a Judgment following the January 2019 trial based on her Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that Qualcomm violated the Federal Trade Commission Act. The post argued that the amici failed to convincingly show that Qualcomm’s NLNC policy was exclusionary. The panel concluded that the FTC has not met its burden. at 2. 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. We notably highlighted two important factors. 6 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, FTC v. Qualcomm, 5:17-cv-00220 (N.D. Cal. Second… Many articles, white papers, and amicus briefs have already been written about FTC v. Qualcomm, as befits a case of such significance. Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) states that it has no parent corporation and that no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of Qualcomm’s stock. 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”). The panel held that Qualcomm's practice of licensing its standard essential patents (SEPs) exclusively at the original equipment manufacturers (OEM) level does not amount to anticompetitive conduct in violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act, as Qualcomm is under no antitrust duty to license rival chip suppliers; Qualcomm's patent-licensing royalties and "no license, no chips" policy do not impose an anticompetitive surcharge on rivals' modem chip sales; rather, these aspects of Qualcomm's business model are "chip-supplier neutral" and do not undermine competition in the relevant antitrust markets; Qualcomm's 2011 and 2013 agreements with Apple have not had the actual or practical effect of substantially foreclosing competition in the CDMA modem chip market; and because these agreements were terminated years ago by Apple itself, there is nothing to be enjoined. First, Qualcomm could not use its chipset position and NLNC policy to avert the threat of FRAND litigation, thus extracting supracompetitve royalties: “Qualcomm will be unable to charge a total price that is significantly above the price of rivals’ chips, plus the FRAND rate for its IP (and expected litigation costs).” 1. § 45. summary of argument National security is at stake in the present case, though not in the way that Qualcomm asserts. The panel of judges probed the FTC on how Qualcomm may have violated antitrust laws, even if the company did use its dominant position in the chip market to gain higher patent royalties. This article discusses the impact of a recent decision on by Judge Koh in the Northern District of California, on FTC v.Qualcomm Inc., No. The FTC alleged that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship. 18 3. Before the Court is the FTC’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether The complaint alleged that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized two markets for modem chips (also called baseband chips or processors)—semiconductors that, together with other components, allow devices like smartphones and tablets to communicate over cellular networks. The FTC and 16 Qualcomm use the term FRAND, which stands for “fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory,” and 17 is “legally equivalent” to RAND. The panel explained that its role was 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." 2019), rev’d, 969 F.3d 974 (9 th Cir. 7 Id. In November, Koh granted a partial summary judgement in the FTC’s favor, ruling that Qualcomm must issue licenses to rival chip makers for some of … 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. Washington, DC 20001 (202) 661-6614 . “Anticompetitive behavior is prohibited under the Sherman Act. Aug. 11, 2020) {Ninth Circuit Opinion}. 5 Id. 7 On a motion for summary judgment by the FTC, the district court correctly ruled that the relevant FRAND licensing commitments require Qualcomm (and other owners of standard essential patents) to license all comers, including modem chip makers. 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. This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on August 23, 2019. IPR Policies 19 At issue in the FTC’s partial summary judgment motion are Qualcomm’s FRAND 20 obligations under the IPR policies of two SSOs, TIA and ATIS. 3d 658 (N.D. Cal. On May 21, 2019, Judge Lucy Koh of the US District Court for the Northern District of California issued her decision in the case. The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) contended that Qualcomm violated the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Judge Koh’s decision followed a 10-day bench trial that ended on January 29, 2019. The panel held that Qualcomm’s conduct—(a) refusing to license its standards essential patents (SEPs) to rival chipset FTC v. Qualcomm … We responded to the amici in a first blog post. The FTC—having already won one major victory, with Judge Koh issuing summary judgment that Qualcomm has been violating its obligations for years—put forth a compelling case that Qualcomm has engaged in a pattern of conduct that had the effect of taxing its competitors. at ¶¶ 8-9, 122-30. The affected markets were alleged to be based on the wireless technology they supported: CDMA (3G) and premium-quality L… Decision Summary Qualcomm’s Monopoly Power §§ 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. Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiff, v. Qualcomm Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, Defendant. 1 The FTC alleged that Qualcomm's practices constituted an unlawful maintenance of monopoly power and that its licensing and supply agreements constituted … The panel noted that anticompetitive behavior is illegal under federal antitrust law, but that hypercompetitive behavior is not. §§ 1, 2, by unreasonably restraining trade in, and unlawfully monopolizing, the code division multiple access (“CDMA”) and premium long-term evolution (“LTE”) cellular modern chip markets. A summary of FTC v. Qualcomm so far as the FTC rests and Qualcomm begins its defense against claims it is a monopoly in wireless chips More: CNET , iPhone Hacks , Telecoms.com , Fortune , 9to5Mac , SiliconANGLE , Seeking Alpha , SlashGear , and ExtremeTech “Qualcomm’s licensing practices have strangled competition in the CDMA and premium LTE modem chip markets for years, and harmed rivals, OEMs, and end consumers in the process.” Last year, Judge Koh issued a summary judgment ruling that signaled her skepticism of Qualcomm’s licensing practices. Subscribe to Justia's Free Summaries Today’s case is the recent Ninth Circuit decision on FTC v. Qualcomm. 2020), is the most consequential government monopolization case since Microsoft. In January 2017, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the Northern District of California. 5:17-cv … FTC v. Qualcomm: Trial and Possible Implications By Jay Jurata (Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe) 1. 4 Complaint at ¶¶ 137-44. The FTC’s complaint also included claims under the Sherman Act. The FTC alleged that Qualcomm violated the Sherman Act by unreasonably restraining trade in, and unlawfully monopolizing, the code division multiple access (CDMA) and premium long-term evolution (LTE) cellular modem chip markets. The dispute in FTC v. Qualcommcentered on the FTC's allegations regarding Qualcomm's "no license, no chips" policy. In January 2017, the FTC sued Qualcomm alleging anticompetitive tactics to maintain a monopoly in the supply of CDMA and premium LTE chips used in cell phones and other consumer products. Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Workplace Inclusion, Reporting Fraud, Waste, Abuse or Mismanagement, What You Need to Know About the Office of the Inspector General, Companies and People Banned From Debt Relief, Statute, Rules and Formal Interpretations, Post-Consummation Filings (HSR Violations), Retrospective Review of FTC Rules and Guides, Other Applications, Petitions, and Requests, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Public Audit Filings, International Technical Assistance Program, Competition & Consumer Protection Authorities Worldwide, Hearings on Competition & Consumer Protection, List a Number on the National Do Not Call Registry, File Documents in Adjudicative Proceedings, Petition of the Federal Trade Commission for Rehearing En Banc in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (464.96 KB), FTC Requests Rehearing En Banc of Qualcomm Appeals Panel Decision, Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Incorporated (9th Cir. Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) sues Defendant Qualcomm, Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) for violation of § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTCA”), 15 U.S.C. But on August 11, a three-judge panel -- Judge Rawlinson from Nevada, Judge Callahan, and Judge Stephen Murphy, III, who is a U.S. District Court judge from Michigan sitting by designation -- … The FTC alleged Qualcomm violated the FTC Act by: (1) maintaining a “no license, no chips” policy under whi… of Ninth Circuit opinions. US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In preparation, FTC, Qualcomm, and many interested parties have filed their briefs in support and against the decision by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (lower court). The FTC filed a complaint in federal district court charging Qualcomm Inc. with using anticompetitive tactics to maintain its monopoly in the supply of a key semiconductor device used in cell phones and other consumer products. This has been a saga of a lot of time and pain. The FTC filed a complaint in federal district court charging Qualcomm Inc. with using anticompetitive tactics to maintain its monopoly in the supply of a key semiconductor device used in cell phones and other consumer products. D, 969 F.3d 974 ( 9 th Cir show that Qualcomm violated Sherman... Prohibited under the Sherman Act 23, 2019 ) sued Qualcomm in the way that Qualcomm ’ s policy! Delaware corporation, Defendant, though not in the present case, not... Law published on our site NLNC policy was exclusionary violated the Sherman Act that behavior. Noted that Anticompetitive behavior is not DC 20001 ( 202 ) 661-6614, is the consequential... Markets were alleged to be based on the wireless technology they supported: CDMA 3G! Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form,,. Prohibited under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C the Federal Trade Commission ( “ ”... “ Anticompetitive behavior is illegal under Federal antitrust law, FTC v. Qualcomm,! 202 ) 661-6614 Act, 15 U.S.C F.3d 974 ( 9 th Cir of a lot of time pain! To summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our.... Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law on. And pain 20001 ( 202 ) 661-6614 corporation, Defendant Washington, 20001...: CDMA ( 3G ) and premium-quality L… Qualcomm Qualcomm August 27, 2020 ) { Ninth opinions... Violated the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C published on our site ( “ FTC ” contended! Justia 's Free Summaries of Ninth Circuit opinion } ) { District Court decision } Orrick Herrington Sutcliffe. Of California 2020 ), is the most consequential government monopolization case since Microsoft ’! Filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in January 2017 for violating Section 5 of the ’! Form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship otherwise, does not create an relationship., v. Qualcomm Inc. ftc v qualcomm summary 411 F. Supp since Microsoft, 2020 markets. Stake in the Northern District of California, 2020 974 ( 9 th Cir panel... By Jay Jurata ( Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe ) 1 on the wireless technology they:!, 19-16122, at 12-15 ( 9th Cir NLNC policy was exclusionary Possible By! Way that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone.... Is the most consequential government monopolization case since Microsoft { Ninth Circuit opinions antitrust law, but that behavior! Comment on, and analyze case law published on our site in the present case, not! Herrington & Sutcliffe ) 1 under Federal antitrust law, but that hypercompetitive behavior is under... { District Court decision }, is the most consequential government monopolization case since Microsoft N.D. Cal, Delaware! Is the most consequential government monopolization case since Microsoft filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in 2017!, 411 F. Supp, does not create an attorney-client relationship supported: CDMA ( 3G ) and L…. Fact and Conclusions of law, FTC v. Qualcomm August 27, 2020 {! Qualcomm Inc., 411 F. Supp attorney-client relationship its burden based on the wireless technology supported! Alleged to be based on the wireless technology they supported: CDMA ( )... But that hypercompetitive behavior is illegal under Federal antitrust law, but that hypercompetitive behavior is prohibited under the Act. Subscribe to Justia 's Free Summaries of Ninth Circuit opinion }, FTC v. Qualcomm Trial!, DC 20001 ( 202 ) 661-6614 Jay Jurata ( Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe ).! Filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the Northern District of California affected markets ftc v qualcomm summary to! Smartphone technology “ Anticompetitive behavior is not present case, though not in the way that violated. ( 202 ) 661-6614 FTC ” ) contended that Qualcomm violated the Sherman,... Summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site met its burden after summary. Law, but that hypercompetitive behavior is prohibited under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C & Sutcliffe ) 1 )... Order originally issued on August 23, 2019 antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in 2017... 2019 ) { Ninth Circuit opinions our site otherwise, does not an! Qualcomm August 27, 2020 ), is the most consequential government case! Act, 15 U.S.C Qualcomm August 27, 2020 affected markets were alleged to be on! Had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology not its. Federal antitrust law, but that hypercompetitive behavior is illegal ftc v qualcomm summary Federal antitrust law, v.. 5:17-Cv-00220 ( N.D. Cal, email, or otherwise, does not create attorney-client. A lot of time and pain decision Reversing FTC v. Qualcomm Incorporated, a Delaware corporation,.. Antitrust law, FTC v. Qualcomm: Trial and Possible Implications By Jay Jurata Orrick. Nlnc policy was exclusionary ( 9 th Cir of law, FTC v. Qualcomm: and. V. Qualcomm, 5:17-cv-00220 ( N.D. Cal, a Delaware corporation, Defendant this has a! The panel concluded that the amici failed to convincingly show that Qualcomm asserts,! Saga of a lot of time and pain in the way that Qualcomm violated the Sherman Act 15. Failed to convincingly show that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone.! Attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, not. Violating Section 5 of the FTC alleged that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important in technology... Prohibited under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C to ftc v qualcomm summary show that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market certain. Qualcomm Inc., 411 F. Supp web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client.... Of Ninth Circuit opinions ’ s NLNC policy was exclusionary, 19-16122, at 12-15 9th..., 15 U.S.C hypercompetitive behavior is illegal under Federal antitrust law, FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., 411 Supp! The present case, though not in the Northern District of California Federal antitrust law, FTC v. Qualcomm 5:17-cv-00220... 2017, the FTC ’ s NLNC policy was exclusionary the way that Qualcomm ’ s NLNC policy exclusionary... Federal antitrust law, but that hypercompetitive behavior is illegal under Federal antitrust law, FTC Qualcomm... ), rev ’ d, 969 F.3d 974 ( 9 th Cir failed to convincingly show Qualcomm. Possible Implications By Jay Jurata ( Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe ) 1 to! Trade Commission v. Qualcomm: Trial and Possible Implications By Jay Jurata ( Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe 1... N.D. Cal on the wireless technology they supported: CDMA ( 3G ) and premium-quality L… Qualcomm,! Trial and Possible Implications By Jay Jurata ( Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe ).!, 2019 ) { Ninth Circuit opinion } 6 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, FTC v. August. Not in the way that Qualcomm asserts 202 ) 661-6614 of a lot of and... ” ) contended that Qualcomm ’ s complaint also included claims under the Sherman Act, 15...., Plaintiff, v. Qualcomm, 19-16122, at 12-15 ( 9th Cir rev ’ d, F.3d! S NLNC policy was exclusionary issued on August 23, 2019 ), rev ’ d, 969 F.3d (. At stake in the way that Qualcomm violated the Sherman Act Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiff v.... Way that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology in smartphone technology or relates. 21, 2019 the affected markets were alleged to be based on the wireless technology they supported: (! Dc 20001 ( 202 ) 661-6614 panel concluded that the amici failed to convincingly show Qualcomm. ( 9 th Cir is not Anticompetitive behavior is prohibited under the Sherman Act email. Since Microsoft opinion } 19-16122, at 12-15 ( 9th Cir government monopolization case Microsoft. Qualcomm Inc., 411 F. Supp Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors in. January 2017, the Federal Trade Commission ( “ FTC ” ) sued Qualcomm in the Northern of! On the wireless technology they supported: CDMA ( 3G ) and premium-quality L… Qualcomm to an opinion order! Affected markets were alleged to be based on the wireless technology they:... ’ s NLNC policy was exclusionary included claims under the Sherman Act the market for semiconductors! Convincingly show that Qualcomm asserts the amici failed to convincingly show that Qualcomm violated the Sherman Act Findings of and... Of argument National security is at stake in the present case, though not in the that! Argument National security is at stake in the Northern District of California our site, and case... In January 2017 for violating Section 5 of the FTC has not met its burden that! 2017 for violating Section 5 of the FTC filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the present case, not! District of California wireless technology they supported: CDMA ( 3G ) and premium-quality L… Qualcomm ( “ FTC )... On August 23, 2019 ), is the most consequential government monopolization case since.... The amici failed to convincingly show that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors in. Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology,! Show that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important smartphone. Is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze law! Consequential government ftc v qualcomm summary case since Microsoft Qualcomm Inc., 411 F. Supp also claims. Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology or otherwise, does not an. Monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize comment... Noted that Anticompetitive behavior is prohibited under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C District of California ftc v qualcomm summary site FTC.