A PYMNTS Company

US: Apple claims SCOTUS ruling invalidates Qualcomm IP agreement

By  |  June 20, 2017

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.

    Get the Full Story

    Complete the form to unlock this article and enjoy unlimited free access to all PYMNTS content — no additional logins required.

    yesSubscribe to our daily newsletter, PYMNTS Today.

    By completing this form, you agree to receive marketing communications from PYMNTS and to the sharing of your information with our sponsor, if applicable, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.

    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.