Judge denies Qualcomm request to stay FTC antitrust ruling enforcement

Posted:
in General Discussion
An attempt by Qualcomm to delay an antitrust ruling against the chip producer from being enforced has been shut down by District Judge Lucy Koh, at the same time as striking a variety of evidence from the record used by Qualcomm to state its case.

Qualcomm building


Qualcomm has failed in its bid to temporarily delay the consequences of a ruling in an ongoing U.S. Federal Trade Commission antitrust case that held the chipmaker responsible for abusing its dominant power in the modem business. Those consequences included remedial actions requiring restructuring of current licensing agreements and modifying its stance on licensing terms.

Shortly after the ruling was made, Qualcomm filed a request to stay on the argument there was an omission of key evidence germane to its original argument, as well as the action potentially irreparably harming the company's licensing strategy during its appeal. Not long after that, the FTC asked the court to deny Qualcomm's request.

In the Wednesday filing first reported by Reuters, Judge Koh denies Qualcomm's motion for stay pending appeal, though does not provide a reason for the denial in the document. Given Koh issued the initial ruling, it would seem unlikely that a judge would agree that her original ruling was overly harsh without any major evidence of it being so, making Koh's decision relatively predictable.

The FTC also formally objected to a Qualcomm court filing containing internal Apple documents aired in a separate lawsuit, divulged as part of Qualcomm's opening statement in the now-settled Apple v. Qualcomm litigation.

The court sustains the FTC's objections to some exhibits of evidence that were offered to support one of Qualcomm's arguments, one raised for the first time during its reply brief, as well as striking what is referred to as Exhibit F. In this instance, the exhibit refers to an entire 31-page slide deck from Qualcomm that included internal Apple documents that referenced intentions to "Reduce Apple's Net Royalty to Qualcomm" and for "Reshaping FRAND."

Koh specifies Exhibit F is for the entire slide deck, which was introduced by Qualcomm without any cuts. The court agrees that, while Qualcomm's reply brief cites only one page from the entire presentation, Qualcomm "improperly seeks to insert the entire slide deck into this record."

Furthermore, the one slide of concern for the lawsuit is "not responsive to any argument in the FTC's or amici's briefs," Koh writes. "Thus the Court need not consider it." Qualcomm's lack of authentication for the document the slide relates to is also counted against it in the decision.

A Qualcomm spokesperson has advised the company has immediate plans to ask the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to stay the ruling by the lower court.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 9
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    I would have expected nothing less from Judge Koh. She was pretty clear in her original ruling and showing any weakness on the opinion would have been out-of-character IMHO.
    edited July 2019
  • Reply 2 of 9
    sergiozsergioz Posts: 338member
    Very happy to hear this! Great job Judge Lucy Koh 👍
  • Reply 3 of 9
    mobirdmobird Posts: 752member
    So how does this affect the recent kumbaya agreement between Apple and Qualcomm? Does that have to be re-written or is it locked in as written?
    This will put a damper on the Qualcomm 4th of July company picnic... ;)
  • Reply 4 of 9
    leavingthebiggleavingthebigg Posts: 1,291member
    mobird said:
    So how does this affect the recent kumbaya agreement between Apple and Qualcomm? Does that have to be re-written or is it locked in as written?
    This will put a damper on the Qualcomm 4th of July company picnic... ;)
    I don’t think Apple will try to get a better deal only because I think Apple got a really good deal that nobody is admitting. I do think Apple will try to buy all of Intel’s 3G/4G/5G patents and with its binding contractual agreement with the Qualcomm, Apple’s 5G modem will be ironclad protected from any patent infringement lawsuits for many years to come.
    AppleExposed
  • Reply 5 of 9
    bestkeptsecretbestkeptsecret Posts: 4,265member
    mobird said:
    So how does this affect the recent kumbaya agreement between Apple and Qualcomm? Does that have to be re-written or is it locked in as written?
    This will put a damper on the Qualcomm 4th of July company picnic... ;)
    I don’t think Apple will try to get a better deal only because I think Apple got a really good deal that nobody is admitting. I do think Apple will try to buy all of Intel’s 3G/4G/5G patents and with its binding contractual agreement with the Qualcomm, Apple’s 5G modem will be ironclad protected from any patent infringement lawsuits for many years to come.

    Agree. With my limited reading about the subject, I think Apple got the better of the settlement with Qualcomm and probably aren't too fussed about re-negotiating.
  • Reply 6 of 9
    mobird said:
    So how does this affect the recent kumbaya agreement between Apple and Qualcomm? Does that have to be re-written or is it locked in as written?
    This will put a damper on the Qualcomm 4th of July company picnic... ;)
    I don’t think Apple will try to get a better deal only because I think Apple got a really good deal that nobody is admitting. I do think Apple will try to buy all of Intel’s 3G/4G/5G patents and with its binding contractual agreement with the Qualcomm, Apple’s 5G modem will be ironclad protected from any patent infringement lawsuits for many years to come.
    Apple will not be ironclad protected from patent lawsuits regarding 5G.  Not really sure how you came to that conclusion.  There are a number of very large players in the 5G space and they are all looking to get as much of their portfolio into the standard as possible.  Huawei, Ericsson, Samsung, Nokia, and even LG are larger players than Intel.  Then you have the medium and smaller players.  Not to mention the numerous Chinese companies trying to get their patents as part of the standard.  Getting Intel's patents could help Apple, but in no way, shape, or form would Apple be ironclad protected.
  • Reply 7 of 9
    leavingthebiggleavingthebigg Posts: 1,291member
    mobird said:
    So how does this affect the recent kumbaya agreement between Apple and Qualcomm? Does that have to be re-written or is it locked in as written?
    This will put a damper on the Qualcomm 4th of July company picnic... ;)
    I don’t think Apple will try to get a better deal only because I think Apple got a really good deal that nobody is admitting. I do think Apple will try to buy all of Intel’s 3G/4G/5G patents and with its binding contractual agreement with the Qualcomm, Apple’s 5G modem will be ironclad protected from any patent infringement lawsuits for many years to come.
    Apple will not be ironclad protected from patent lawsuits regarding 5G.  Not really sure how you came to that conclusion.  There are a number of very large players in the 5G space and they are all looking to get as much of their portfolio into the standard as possible.  Huawei, Ericsson, Samsung, Nokia, and even LG are larger players than Intel.  Then you have the medium and smaller players.  Not to mention the numerous Chinese companies trying to get their patents as part of the standard.  Getting Intel's patents could help Apple, but in no way, shape, or form would Apple be ironclad protected.
    If I’m correct, Apple has current patent agreements in place with Ericsson and Nokia. Since no company is suing Intel, I’m betting the Intel portfolio is strong enough to be used defensively and offensively if necessary. Another thing that makes me think Apple will be safe is its GPU has so far successfully navigated GPU patent land mines. Time will tell. 
    AppleExposed
  • Reply 8 of 9
    mobird said:
    So how does this affect the recent kumbaya agreement between Apple and Qualcomm? Does that have to be re-written or is it locked in as written?
    This will put a damper on the Qualcomm 4th of July company picnic... ;)
    I don’t think Apple will try to get a better deal only because I think Apple got a really good deal that nobody is admitting. I do think Apple will try to buy all of Intel’s 3G/4G/5G patents and with its binding contractual agreement with the Qualcomm, Apple’s 5G modem will be ironclad protected from any patent infringement lawsuits for many years to come.
    Apple will not be ironclad protected from patent lawsuits regarding 5G.  Not really sure how you came to that conclusion.  There are a number of very large players in the 5G space and they are all looking to get as much of their portfolio into the standard as possible.  Huawei, Ericsson, Samsung, Nokia, and even LG are larger players than Intel.  Then you have the medium and smaller players.  Not to mention the numerous Chinese companies trying to get their patents as part of the standard.  Getting Intel's patents could help Apple, but in no way, shape, or form would Apple be ironclad protected.
    If I’m correct, Apple has current patent agreements in place with Ericsson and Nokia. Since no company is suing Intel, I’m betting the Intel portfolio is strong enough to be used defensively and offensively if necessary. Another thing that makes me think Apple will be safe is its GPU has so far successfully navigated GPU patent land mines. Time will tell. 
    This makes absolutely no sense at all.  You're making connections that have no logical basis.  Intel hasn't been sued, therefore their portfolio is strong?  Whaaaa?  Wouldn't it make infinitely more sense to think Intel hasn't been sued because Intel licensed the patents they needed to operate legally?  Just like all the other companies.  Apple hasn't been sued regarding GPU's, therefore you think they would be safe regarding 5G modems?  There is no correlation there.  

    Apple licensing the proper patents can help them lessen the chances of being sued regarding their efforts to build their own modem.   If any of Intel's patents are accepted as standards, that will also help (if Apple acquires them).  In no way, shape, or form does that make them ironclad against litigation.  Nothing can make Apple, or any company ironclad against litigation.  Ironclad: that's simply inaccurate hyperbole.  Apple has been sued enough over patents that it should be patently (intended) obvious.  
  • Reply 9 of 9
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    Of some note:

    The Ninth Circuit has granted Qualcomm's request for an expedited appeal asking a stay on parts of Judge Koh's ruling.

    Still may take a few months for even that since the FTC reply brief does not have to be submitted before October 4th and QC has the option of replying to that up until October 25th. Then  to quote: "This case shall be placed on the first calendar available upon completion of briefing"


    So closer to the end of the year, very first part of 2020 sounds about right for it actually being ruled upon by the Appeals panel. Yeah that's an expedited case.  LOL. 

     


    edited July 2019
Sign In or Register to comment.