Chip Makers Face Tough Decisions Following Judge Koh's Qualcomm Ruling
The judge's ruling this week in the FTC's antitrust case against Qualcomm could be a game changer for licensing disputes in the 3G, 4G and 5G spaces.
November 08, 2018 at 06:20 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
Chip suppliers are going to face some challenging decisions in the wake of U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh's ruling this week in the Federal Trade Commission's antitrust action against Qualcomm Technologies Inc.
The question will be whether to accept Koh's decision that they're required to license their standard-essential patents to chip-making competitors or continue brushing them off.
“It's a very sobering ruling for large-scale standard-essential patent holders, especially in the 3G, 4G, 5G licensing space,” Goodwin Procter counsel Monte Cooper said. “It's only one district court judge's interpretation” of a chip supplier's commitment to fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) royalties, “but it's a very influential district court judge in a very influential case.”
Koh ruled Tuesday that when Qualcomm signed on with standard-setting organizations such as the Telecommunications Industry Association, Qualcomm promised to license its standard-essential patents (SEPs) at FRAND rates not only to handset makers, but also to competing chip makers.
She looked to two Ninth Circuit decisions involving FRAND disputes between Microsoft and Motorola Mobility. “Those binding precedents are clear: a SEP holder that commits to license its SEPs on FRAND terms must license those SEPs to all applicants,” Koh wrote.
Cooper has been following the Qualcomm litigation as a veteran of SEP licensing and litigation and as counsel to Sequans Communications, one of numerous third parties in the case. If major SEP holders such as Ericsson and Nokia accede to Koh's ruling, it will likely depress the royalty income they earn not only on phones, but other consumer items like drones, even cars. But if they continue refusing to license competitors, they could risk getting hauled into court and accused of breaching their FRAND obligations.
“It's definitely going to make life more complicated for SEP holders in the 3G and 4G space,” he said. “That's going to be a tough decision for in-house [attorneys] to make.”
The FTC sued Qualcomm in January 2017, in the wake of antitrust actions by the governments of South Korea, China, Taiwan and the EU that resulted in nine-figure penalties.
The FTC alleges that Qualcomm has violated its FRAND obligations in two ways: by refusing to license to competitors and by threatening to withhold chips from handset makers who won't pay its going rate. Both strategies leverage Qualcomm's monopoly power in violation of state and federal antitrust law, the FTC alleges.
Tuesday's ruling addressed only the FTC's first allegation. It focused on commitments Qualcomm made to standard-setting organizations to license its SEPs “to all applicants under terms and conditions that are reasonable and non-discriminatory.”
Koh granted partial summary judgment to the FTC that those commitments are binding contracts and apply not only to handset makers but competing chip suppliers such as Intel Corp. She pointed out that in the Microsoft v. Motorola cases, the Ninth Circuit held that such commitments apply “to all comers” and that an SEP holder “cannot refuse a license to a manufacturer who commits to paying the RAND rate.” The Federal Circuit, too, has held that SEP holders must grant licenses to “an unrestricted number of applicants.”
“Qualcomm is unable to identify any court that has made a contrary statement about the scope of a SEP holder's FRAND commitments,” she wrote.
Further, she reasoned, TIA guidelines accompanying the agreements specifically identify “a willingness to license all applicants except for competitors of the licensor” as an example of discriminatory conduct under the TIA IPR policy. That language isn't part of the contract, but it's extrinsic evidence of the contracting parties' intent under California law, she wrote.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All

Zoom Faces Intellectual Property Suit Over AI-Based Augmented Video Conferencing
3 minute read
Federal Judge Approves Harvard's Dismissal of Chip-Patent Suit Against Samsung
2 minute read
California Court Denies Apple's Motion to Strike Allegations in Gender Bias Class Action
Trending Stories
- 1Dissenter Blasts 4th Circuit Majority Decision Upholding Meta's Section 230 Defense
- 2NBA Players Association Finds Its New GC in Warriors Front Office
- 3Prenuptial Agreement Spousal Support Waivers: Proceed With Caution
- 4DC Circuit Keeps Docs in Judge Newman's Misconduct Proceedings Sealed
- 5Litigators of the Week: US Soccer and MLS Fend Off Claims They Conspired to Scuttle Rival League’s Prospect
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250