Skip to main content

A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday reversed a lower court ruling against chip supplier Qualcomm Inc. in an antitrust lawsuit brought by the Federal Trade Commission.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also vacated an injunction that would have required Qualcomm to change its intellectual property licensing practices.

The decision was a major vindication for the San Diego-based company, the largest supplier of chips for mobile phones and a key generator of wireless communications technology.

Story continues below advertisement

Qualcomm was fighting a May, 2019 decision by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, Calif. Justice Koh sided with the FTC, writing that Qualcomm’s practice of requiring phone makers to sign a patent licence agreement before selling them chips “strangled competition” and harmed consumers.

But the appeals court, in a 3-0 ruling written by Circuit Judge Consuelo Callahan, ruled that Qualcomm had no duty to license its patents to rival chip suppliers and that it was not anti-competitive to require phone makers to sign a licence agreement.

“Instead, these aspects of Qualcomm’s business model are ‘chip-supplier neutral’ and do not undermine competition in the relevant antitrust markets,” Justice Callahan wrote.

Qualcomm praised the decision while the FTC called it “disappointing.”

“The Court of Appeals unanimous reversal, entirely vacating the District Court decision, validates our business model and patent licensing program and underscores the tremendous contributions that Qualcomm has made to the industry,” Don Rosenberg, Qualcomm’s general counsel, said in a statement.

The FTC’s Bureau of Competition director, Ian Conner, said in a statement that the agency “will be considering our options.”

The case divided U.S. antitrust regulators with the Justice Department intervening to file a brief in support of Qualcomm.

Story continues below advertisement

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Qualcomm shares rose about 4 per cent on the news. The shares have been up from March lows as the company continued to show growth despite a sluggish smartphone market.

Qualcomm had argued that the FTC decision, if allowed to stand, would upend its business model by requiring it for the first time to license its technology to rival chip makers and rework many of its patent licensing deals with phone makers.

Qualcomm won a pause in enforcement of the decision while its legal appeal played out and voluntarily changed how it structured some of its licensing deals for 5G technology. With the appeals victory and raft of new agreements signed with customers since the case was decided, Qualcomm is largely clear to resume conducting business as it had for decades before the FTC case.

Qualcomm’s business model often prompted conflict with phone makers, most notably Apple Inc., which supported the FTC’s case and mounted a separate antitrust lawsuit against Qualcomm.

The phone makers bristled at Qualcomm’s insistence that manufacturers license its broad patent portfolio regardless of whose chips they chose.

Story continues below advertisement

Apple settled its case against Qualcomm in 2018 and signed a licence deal and chip supply agreement. Other major phone makers such as Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. have also settled disputes with the chip supplier and signed licence deals since the FTC case was decided.

Be smart with your money. Get the latest investing insights delivered right to your inbox three times a week, with the Globe Investor newsletter. Sign up today.

Report an error
Tickers mentioned in this story
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies