Qualcomm has received its attraction towards the US Federal Commerce Fee, with the courtroom discovering that Qualcomm’s licensing insurance policies should not anticompetitive. In a judgment revealed Tuesday, the Court docket of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the earlier judgment, reversing , which required it to renegotiate charges with rivals.
In response to the ruling, Qualcomm didn’t impose an anticompetitive surcharge on its competitor telephone chip suppliers, and didn’t undermine competitors by charging royalties. The courtroom additionally mentioned Qualcomm’s Apple contracts in 2011 and 2013 didn’t considerably foreclose competitors to take care of its monopolies within the CDMA and LTE chip markets.
“Anticompetitive habits is unlawful below federal antitrust regulation. Hypercompetitive habits shouldn’t be,” the courtroom mentioned. “Qualcomm has exercised market dominance within the 3G and 4G mobile modem chip markets for a few years, and its enterprise practices have performed a robust and disruptive position in these markets, in addition to within the broader mobile companies and know-how markets. The corporate has asserted its financial muscle ‘with vigor, creativeness, devotion and ingenuity.'”
Qualcomm had appealed the case after the District Court docket dominated in favor of the FTC in Could 2019. That ruling mentioned Qualcomm wrongfully suppressed opponents within the telephone chip market by utilizing its dominance to pressure rivals to pay excessive licensing charges.
The case started with the FTC accusing Qualcomm three years in the past of forcing prospects like Apple to work with it solely, and of charging extreme licensing charges for its know-how.
“The Court docket of Appeals’ unanimous reversal, solely vacating the District Court docket resolution, validates our enterprise mannequin and patent licensing program and underscores the large contributions that Qualcomm has made to the trade,” mentioned Don Rosenberg, Qualcomm EVP and common counsel. “We thank the panel for its considerate consideration of this necessary case.”
The FTC did not instantly reply to a request for remark.