Ninth Circuit Puts $5B Qualcomm Consumer Class Action on Hold
Judge Lucy Koh, who is overseeing the underlying case, indicated she'll stay it while the Ninth Circuit reviews her order certifying a class of some 250 million cellphone purchasers.
January 23, 2019 at 09:17 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is going to weigh in on a $5 billion consumer class action against Qualcomm Inc. over its IP licensing practices.
A two-judge motions panel granted Qualcomm's petition for an interlocutory appeal on Wednesday. Qualcomm asked the Ninth Circuit to intervene last October, saying the class of some 250 million cellphone purchasers is unprecedented and that U.S District Judge Lucy Koh, who is overseeing the case, had “casually dismissed the due-process and manageability issues” it would present.
The order comes as Koh is hearing a bench trial in the Federal Trade Commission's antitrust case against Qualcomm, which accuses the chip giant of inflating mobile device prices through heavy-handed licensing tactics.
The consumer class relies on many of the same antitrust theories advanced by the FTC. Trial in the class action had been scheduled for June, but Koh stayed the case Wednesday, pending a ruling from the Ninth Circuit.
Wednesday's order was issued without substantive comment and is not a ruling on the merits, which will probably be decided by a different panel of judges. Still, it's a likely signal that at least one of the judges had some concerns about the class certification order, said Ben Feuer of the California Appellate Law Group.
“The Ninth Circuit has definitely been smacked down for allowing unusually large or unwieldy class actions in the past,” said Feuer, a former Ninth Circuit clerk, pointing to Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes as one example. Feuer said he “wouldn't be delighted” if he were in the consumers' shoes.
The consumers accuse Qualcomm of having inflated prices by, among other things, threatening to cut off the supply of cellphone modem chips to manufacturers who balk at licensing Qualcomm patents that are essential to meeting wireless industry standards. Consumers and the FTC call the practice “no license, no chips.”
Koh certified a class of nearly 250 million purchasers last September, describing the evidence they advanced as “substantial,” “strong” and “compelling.”
Qualcomm went to the Ninth Circuit the next month. Koh's analysis was “deficient in process, reasoning, and result,” the company argued in a petition signed by Keker, Van Nest & Peters partner Robert Van Nest.
Specifically, Van Nest accused Koh of improperly applying California antitrust law to a nationwide class contrary to Ninth Circuit precedent; relying on a “pass-through” theory that other courts have rejected, and dismissing due process and manageability concerns.
The consumers are led by Susman Godfrey partner Kalpana Srinivasan and Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy partner Joseph Cotchett. They argued that Koh's order was correct and that any appeal could have waited until after trial. “If ever a defendant had the resources to litigate a class action through trial and appeal if it so chooses, it is Qualcomm,” Srinivasan had argued in opposition.
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
© 2024 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'Innovation Over Regulation': Tech Litigators and Experts Share Insights on the Future of AI, Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Under Trump
AT&T General Counsel Joins ADM Board as Company Reels From Accounting Scandal
How Dana Rao Built a 'Yes' Culture at Adobe and Why He Walked Away
Trending Stories
- 1Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 2Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 3Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 4Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 5The Law Firm Disrupted: Big Law Profits Vs. Political Values
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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