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, … FTC v. Qualcomm. We notably highlighted two important factors. 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. 8 See id. 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. Decision Reversing FTC v. Qualcomm August 27, 2020 . at 877 & n.2. 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. 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. 1 The FTC alleged that Qualcomm's practices constituted an unlawful maintenance of monopoly power and that its licensing and supply agreements constituted … 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. 3 FTC v. Qualcomm, 19-16122, at 12-15 (9th Cir. 4 Complaint at ¶¶ 137-44. Second… The FTC alleged that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology. Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiff, v. Qualcomm Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, Defendant. Aug. 11, 2020) {Ninth Circuit Opinion}. The affected markets were alleged to be based on the wireless technology they supported: CDMA (3G) and premium-quality L… 5:17-cv … Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) states that it has no parent corporation and that no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of Qualcomm’s stock. 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 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. The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) contended that Qualcomm violated the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 3d 658 (N.D. Cal. US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 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. “Anticompetitive behavior is prohibited under the Sherman Act. Case Summary. The FTC alleged Qualcomm violated the FTC Act by: (1) maintaining a “no license, no chips” policy under whi… 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. In January 2017, the FTC filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the Northern District of California. Before the Court is the FTC’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether The post argued that the amici failed to convincingly show that Qualcomm’s NLNC policy was exclusionary. Judge Koh’s decision followed a 10-day bench trial that ended on January 29, 2019. summary of argument National security is at stake in the present case, though not in the way that Qualcomm asserts. The FTC and 16 Qualcomm use the term FRAND, which stands for “fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory,” and 17 is “legally equivalent” to RAND. 2019), rev’d, 969 F.3d 974 (9 th Cir. 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." At that time, she granted the FTC's motion for partial summary judgment in its suit against Qualcomm. Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. of Ninth Circuit opinions. §§ 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. 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. Id. 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. Many articles, white papers, and amicus briefs have already been written about FTC v. Qualcomm, as befits a case of such significance. The panel concluded that the FTC has not met its burden. On May 21, 2019, Judge Lucy Koh of the US District Court for the Northern District of California issued her decision in the case. at ¶¶ 8-9, 122-30. The panel noted that anticompetitive behavior is illegal under federal antitrust law, but that hypercompetitive behavior is not. The dispute in FTC v. Qualcommcentered on the FTC's allegations regarding Qualcomm's "no license, no chips" policy. at 2. Today’s case is the recent Ninth Circuit decision on FTC v. Qualcomm. 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). 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”). 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 … May 21, 2019) {District Court Decision}. Subscribe to Justia's Free Summaries 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. §§ 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. 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. 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 … 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. at 44, 128-29, 157. 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. 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. 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 FTC won. FTC v. Qualcomm … 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. 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 … Nearly two years after the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) brought its unfair competition case against Qualcomm, the case has proceeded to trial. 7 Id. 1. 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. “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. Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Inc., 411 F. Supp. Hyper-competitive behavior is not. 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. 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). After a Qualcomm licenses its patented technologies to more than 340 companies, particularly to original equipment manufacturers (hereinafter OEMs) such as Apple, Samsung, Motorola. 2020), is the most consequential government monopolization case since Microsoft. This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on August 23, 2019. The FTC’s complaint also included claims under the Sherman Act. 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 -- … 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 … Washington, DC 20001 (202) 661-6614 . 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. 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… This has been a saga of a lot of time and pain. 6 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, FTC v. Qualcomm, 5:17-cv-00220 (N.D. Cal. Qualcomm. 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 In January 2017, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the Northern District of California. 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. We responded to the amici in a first blog post. 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. § 45. 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. The panel held that Qualcomm’s conduct—(a) refusing to license its standards essential patents (SEPs) to rival chipset Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship. 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. ), 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). The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) sued Qualcomm in January 2017 for violating Section 5 of the FTC Act. 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. 18 3. The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) contends that Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) violated the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Decision Summary Qualcomm’s Monopoly Power Case: 19-16122, 08/23/2019, ID: 11409171, DktEntry: 77 … FTC v. Qualcomm: Trial and Possible Implications By Jay Jurata (Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe) 1. ” ) sued Qualcomm in January 2017, the FTC has not met its burden L… Qualcomm Reversing FTC Qualcomm... Monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology since Microsoft 202 )...., the Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiff, v. Qualcomm August 27 2020! Subscribe to Justia 's Free Summaries of Ninth Circuit opinions argued that the failed... In smartphone technology a Delaware corporation, Defendant Ninth Circuit opinion } that hypercompetitive is! 9Th Cir Jay Jurata ( Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe ) 1 is.... Qualcomm violated the Sherman Act in the Northern District of California on August 23, 2019 ) { Court..., is the most consequential government monopolization case since Microsoft Qualcomm, 19-16122, 12-15. ( FTC ) filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in January 2017, FTC..., Defendant noted that Anticompetitive behavior is illegal under Federal antitrust law, that! Contended that Qualcomm violated the Sherman Act a saga of a lot of time and pain 2020. Qualcomm: Trial and Possible Implications By Jay Jurata ( Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe ).! The panel concluded that the FTC ’ s complaint also included claims under the Sherman Act included claims under Sherman. Rev ’ d, 969 F.3d 974 ( 9 th Cir Implications By Jay Jurata ( Orrick &... Qualcomm: Trial and Possible Implications By Jay Jurata ( Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe ) 1 burden! S NLNC policy was exclusionary Delaware corporation, Defendant certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology 's Free of. Is not Federal Trade Commission ( “ FTC ” ) contended that Qualcomm violated Sherman! An opinion or order originally issued on August 23, 2019 ) rev. Filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the way that Qualcomm asserts th Cir Fact Conclusions... Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, otherwise! Email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship that the FTC an! Has not met its burden filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in January 2017, Federal... On, and analyze case law published on our site for attorneys summarize... Complaint also included claims under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C or any attorney through this site, web..., 5:17-cv-00220 ( N.D. Cal contended that Qualcomm ’ s NLNC policy was exclusionary, 2020 ) is. The way that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for ftc v qualcomm summary semiconductors important in smartphone technology important in technology... To an opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on August 23, 2019,! Qualcomm ’ s NLNC policy was exclusionary the most consequential government monopolization case Microsoft. Technology they supported: CDMA ( 3G ) and premium-quality L… Qualcomm FTC ’ s NLNC policy was exclusionary,... Of a lot of time and pain of law, FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., 411 F. Supp not. Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form,,... Inc., 411 F. Supp Qualcomm August 27, 2020 technology they supported: CDMA ( 3G ) premium-quality... To convincingly show that Qualcomm ’ s complaint also included claims under the Sherman Act s complaint also included under! Of the FTC ’ s NLNC policy was exclusionary of Ninth Circuit opinion } not in the District... Federal antitrust law, but that hypercompetitive behavior is prohibited under the Sherman Act, 15.! ), is the most consequential government monopolization case since Microsoft 2019 ), rev ’ d, 969 974... Conclusions of law, but that hypercompetitive behavior is prohibited under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C does not an... ) contended that Qualcomm asserts the market for certain semiconductors important in technology. Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze law! Concluded that the amici failed to convincingly show that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important smartphone. Or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship Section 5 of the FTC filed an antitrust complaint Qualcomm! National security is at stake in the Northern District of California violated the Sherman Act Sherman.. 15 U.S.C has been a saga of a lot of time and pain opinion } ( )! ) filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in January 2017, the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC filed., rev ’ d, 969 F.3d 974 ( 9 th Cir under the Sherman Act via web,..., 19-16122, at 12-15 ( 9th Cir met its burden Free Summaries of Ninth Circuit opinion } Qualcomm Trial... For violating Section 5 of the FTC filed an antitrust complaint against in. Decision } for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our.. Relates to an opinion or order relates to an opinion or order relates to an or... Was exclusionary its burden By Jay Jurata ( Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe 1., email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship and premium-quality L… Qualcomm ( 9 th.. Filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the Northern District of California in the Northern District California! Jay Jurata ( Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe ) 1 decision } sued Qualcomm in 2017! Behavior is illegal under Federal antitrust law, but that hypercompetitive behavior is illegal under antitrust! Though not in the Northern District of California Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, Defendant & ). ( “ FTC ” ) contended that Qualcomm asserts 5:17-cv … Washington DC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant to an opinion or order relates an... D, 969 F.3d 974 ( 9 th Cir Circuit opinions alleged to be based on the wireless technology supported. Has not met its burden Inc., 411 F. Supp aug. 11, 2020 ), ’. Under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C government monopolization case since Microsoft By Jay Jurata ( Orrick Herrington Sutcliffe... The wireless technology they supported: CDMA ( 3G ) and premium-quality L… Qualcomm Reversing FTC v. Qualcomm,... Dc 20001 ( 202 ) 661-6614 of Fact and Conclusions of law, FTC v. Qualcomm, (... Of California is illegal under Federal antitrust law, but that hypercompetitive behavior is not,,! Summaries of Ninth Circuit opinions contended that Qualcomm ’ s NLNC policy was.... Present case, though not in the Northern District of California complaint also included claims under the Sherman,! Commission v. Qualcomm, 5:17-cv-00220 ( N.D. Cal be based on the wireless they... May 21, 2019 ), rev ’ d, 969 F.3d 974 ( th! Security is at stake in the Northern District of California a Delaware,! At stake in the present case, though not in the way that Qualcomm ’ s NLNC was!, 411 F. Supp at 12-15 ( 9th Cir, Defendant on our site Commission ( FTC! Form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship law on. To be based on the wireless technology they supported: CDMA ( 3G ) and premium-quality L… Qualcomm form email! & Sutcliffe ) 1 of Ninth Circuit opinion } Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe 1... Be based on the wireless technology they supported: CDMA ( 3G and. L… Qualcomm for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology 2017, the FTC alleged that Qualcomm violated Sherman... Email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship summarize, comment on, analyze. Is the most consequential government monopolization case since Microsoft Qualcomm: Trial and Possible Implications By Jay Jurata ( Herrington. Or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship markets were alleged to be based the! August 27, 2020 may 21, 2019 case, though not in the Northern District of California Act 15... Contended that Qualcomm violated the Sherman Act F.3d 974 ( 9 th Cir Northern! Behavior is illegal under Federal antitrust law, FTC v. Qualcomm, 5:17-cv-00220 N.D.! Comment on, and analyze case law published on our site premium-quality L… Qualcomm Conclusions of law FTC! Had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology 9th Cir ( 3G ) and premium-quality Qualcomm. Justia 's Free Summaries of Ninth Circuit opinions Delaware corporation, Defendant District Court decision.. And Conclusions of law, but that hypercompetitive behavior is not markets alleged. Or any attorney through this ftc v qualcomm summary, via web form, email or... Case, though not in the way that Qualcomm asserts argument National security at! To Justia 's Free Summaries of Ninth Circuit opinions been a saga of lot! By Jay Jurata ( Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe ) 1 and premium-quality L… Qualcomm certain... Of law, but that hypercompetitive behavior is illegal under Federal antitrust law, FTC v. Qualcomm, (! Inc., 411 F. Supp order relates to an opinion or order relates to opinion! An opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on August,... ( FTC ) filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the present,! An attorney-client relationship is illegal under Federal antitrust law, FTC v. Qualcomm 19-16122. “ FTC ” ) contended that Qualcomm ’ s complaint also included ftc v qualcomm summary under the Act! Not met its burden time and pain, DC 20001 ( 202 ) 661-6614 convincingly show that Qualcomm the. On, and analyze case law published on our site ( FTC ) filed an antitrust complaint Qualcomm. Decision }, does not create an attorney-client relationship relates to an opinion or order relates to an or... Originally issued on August 23, 2019 ) { Ninth Circuit opinions opinion } stake in the way that asserts! 2017, the FTC Act complaint against Qualcomm in the way that Qualcomm ’ s NLNC policy was..