Blockbuster ruling strips Qualcomm of patent forcing ITC to side with Apple

Blockbuster ruling strips Qualcomm of patent forcing ITC to side with Apple
Earlier today, we told you about a decision made in a new case brought by Qualcomm to the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). Today's ruling by ITC Judge MaryJoan McNamara recommended that an exclusion order be placed on certain iPhone models imported to the states from China. The ruling was made after the judge found that Apple infringed on a Qualcomm patent, but did not infringe on two others. The entire U.S. ITC, as per commission rules, will review this case and make a final decision in July.

Shortly after this news came out, the U.S. ITC released the blockbuster decision that we had been expecting all day relating to a decision made by Judge Thomas Pender back in September. In that case, Pender found that Apple infringed on a Qualcomm patent related to a power saving feature on the iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8, iPhone 8 Plus and the iPhone X. However, Judge Pender said that it would not be in the public's interest to issue an exclusion ban against those models. That decision was reviewed by the entire U.S. ITC and the final ruling agrees with Judge Pender's initial call; there will be no exclusion order against the iPhone based on the case that the U.S. ITC heard in September. In addition, Qualcomm's patent on the power saving feature that Apple initially was found liable of infringing, has been declared invalid. Since the patent was tossed, the full commission had no choice but to pass on issuing a sales and import ban against Apple. Had the full ITC review led it to impose an exclusion order against Apple, it would have been sent to President Donald Trump to either sign off on, veto, or let lapse after 60 days.

Qualcomm awaits decision in another case that could change the way it sells its chips


Another huge decision is expected soon from the court battle between the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Qualcomm. In this case, the FTC argued that Qualcomm violates antitrust laws with its "no license, no chips" policy. The no-jury trial was presided over by Judge Lucy Koh, a veteran of many legal battles in the tech world including the first Apple v. Samsung trial. Should Judge Koh rule in the FTC's favor, Qualcomm could be forced to change the way it sells its chips to smartphone manufacturers. Another lawsuit that charges the chip maker of running a monopoly will start next month with Apple as the plaintiff.

Apple and Qualcomm have squared off in a number of court battles this year, and the two companies probably have contributed quite a bit to the high standards of living enjoyed by many attorneys. For example, over the last few months Qualcomm has won patent infringement cases against Apple in China, Germany and the U.S.

As you might imagine, the shares of Apple and Qualcomm both reacted to the pair of decisions. When Judge McNamara's recommendation in favor of an exclusion order was announced earlier today, it led Apple's shares to close the day down 1% in regular trading to $186.79. Qualcomm's shares had an even larger reaction, rising 2.4% to $58 (remember, the full commission still needs to review that case). When the final decision over the September hearing was announced in Apple's favor, its shares rose .5% in after hours trading while Qualcomm's declined .4%

FEATURED VIDEO

29 Comments

1. maherk

Posts: 7007; Member since: Feb 10, 2012

And fanboys get mad when we say that the whole judicial system and Wallstreet will do everything they can to protect Apple. Mind you, this is the same system that fined Samsung for "copying" the iPhone's "rounded corners", the same case that was dismissed and laughed on in every other country not named the U.S.

2. Dr.Phil

Posts: 2477; Member since: Feb 14, 2011

The real court case is the one that is going to be decided on Qualcomm's chip selling practices. Oddly enough, for two of the world's biggest competitors, Samsung and Apple are both on the side of the FTC against Qualcomm on it.

5. OneLove123

Posts: 1246; Member since: Aug 28, 2018

I already know Qualcomm is going to lose on that one. It's Apple, they cant lose.

21. shm224

Posts: 296; Member since: Mar 19, 2015

Samsung already renegotiated their licensing agreement with Qualcomm and is no longer pursuing legal actions against Qualcomm. The only thing Samsung and Apple had in common was that they were the two largest customers of Qualcomm.

31. Dr.Phil

Posts: 2477; Member since: Feb 14, 2011

It doesn't really matter that they did. They probably still support the merits of the lawsuit. LG, Intel, Huawei, and MediaTek are all listed as supporting the lawsuit as well. Pretty safe to say that there's a lot of people not happy with Qualcomm's business practices.

35. shm224

Posts: 296; Member since: Mar 19, 2015

> They probably still support the merits of the lawsuit Please stop guessing. No, Samsung doesn't. In South Korea, Samsung dropped out of KFTC's antitrust lawsuit against Qualcomm after renegotiation their licensing deal.https://www.phonearena.com/news/LG-replaces-Samsung-in-Korean-suit-against-Qualcomm_id112242 > LG, Intel, Huawei, and MediaTek are all listed as supporting the lawsuit as wel Sure, Samsung got what they wanted. The others all want to "renegotiate" better licensing agreement out this. If you think this is about Qualcomm's antitrust, oh boy you are wrong.

4. OneLove123

Posts: 1246; Member since: Aug 28, 2018

I'm not shocked by the ruling. But, Apple can win with rounded corners? Lmao

8. briankeithmays

Posts: 35; Member since: Dec 18, 2013

The USA is pathetic when it comes to prioritizing apple over other companies in order to keep Wallstreet happy.

9. briankeithmays

Posts: 35; Member since: Dec 18, 2013

This is pure favoritism.!

14. darkkjedii

Posts: 31529; Member since: Feb 05, 2011

About what I expected. Apple wasn't getting a ban in the USA, too much influence for that to happen.

17. Vancetastic

Posts: 1704; Member since: May 17, 2017

Absolutely. I wish they could have just worked this out without involving lawsuits, but I suppose that’s too much to ask these days.

18. darkkjedii

Posts: 31529; Member since: Feb 05, 2011

100% agreed.

20. maherk

Posts: 7007; Member since: Feb 10, 2012

You even called it in another article hours before it happened.

23. darkkjedii

Posts: 31529; Member since: Feb 05, 2011

I knew it dude, I was like no matter what, they won't be banned in the states.

28. Vancetastic

Posts: 1704; Member since: May 17, 2017

It’s too bad, because they need a big wake-up slap.

30. cmdacos

Posts: 4306; Member since: Nov 01, 2016

Did anyone really expect a decision where the party guilty of stealing would actually be punished? Not in Kardashian land. Ain't happening. Do as they say, not as they do. Meanwhile apple continues to get caught for stealing IP.

36. domfonusr

Posts: 1092; Member since: Jan 17, 2014

QC is quickly being cut down to size by all of this... they will never bully anyone ever again. Apple, on the other hand, is about to become the biggest bully in the market that we have ever seen in our lifetimes...

* Some comments have been hidden, because they don't meet the discussions rules.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.