Apple has escalated its legal attack on Qualcomm, declaring the iPhone broadband chip license agreement is invalid, and the manufacturer is illegally double-dipping in its demand for a royalty payment for chip technology in conjunction with charging for the chips.
First reported by Reuters, Apple is utilizing a recent US Supreme Court decision that put tighter restrictions on manufacturers to control how products are used or resold. Apple argues that Qualcomm is entitled to only “one reward” rather than reaping profit on the sale of the chip, and charging a percentage of the iPhone selling price from the intellectual property license.
The formal buyers of the broadband chips are Apple’s manufacturers —which then pass the costs on to Apple. As part of the filing, Apple has asked the court to stop Qualcomm’s lawsuits against Foxconn, and three other manufacturers.
The lawsuit that started the battle was filed in January, with Apple accusing Qualcomm of unfair licensing terms. Apple claims that Qualcomm withheld nearly US$1 billion in rebates in retaliation for participating in a South Korean antitrust investigation.
Apple alleges Qualcomm abuses its “monopoly power” of the mobile wireless chip market to skirt fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) commitments to charge customers exorbitant royalty rates for standard essential patent (“SEP”). Qualcomm also restricts sales of chips to buyers who have agreed to license its SEPs, a practice Apple refers to as “double-dipping” —the point hammered home in the court filing on Monday.
Those accusations mirror certain claims addressed in a US Federal Trade Commission antitrust lawsuit also lodged in January.
Full Content: Reuters
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
Massachusetts AG Sues Insulin Makers and PBMs Over Alleged Price-Fixing Scheme
Jan 14, 2025 by
CPI
Apple and Amazon Avoid Mass Lawsuit in UK Over Alleged Collusion
Jan 14, 2025 by
CPI
Top Agent Network Drops Antitrust Suit Against National Association of Realtors
Jan 14, 2025 by
CPI
Weil, Gotshal & Manges Strengthens Antitrust Practice with New Partner
Jan 14, 2025 by
CPI
Russian Court Imposes Hefty Fine on Google for Non-Compliance with Content Removal Orders
Jan 14, 2025 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand