Qualcomm posts $1.52 billion bond required to start the sales ban of older iPhone models in Germany

Qualcomm posts $1.52 billion bond required to start the sales ban of older iPhone models in Germany
Back on December 20th, a court in Munich ruled that Apple had infringed on a Qualcomm patent and imposed an importation and sales ban in the country on the Apple iPhone 7 and iPhone 8. The court said that the chip designer's patent for a  "Low-voltage power-efficient envelope tracker" was infringed by Apple supplier Qorvo. But before the sales ban could take effect in Germany, Qualcomm had to post a $1.52 billion bond.

Qualcomm posted the bond with the court today says Reuters, meaning that the ban can now begin. Apple says that it will remove older iPhone models from German stores, and it will also appeal the original court ruling. Despite Apple's decision to appeal, the importation and sales ban went into effect once the court received the bond from Qualcomm. The bond needs to be posted in case Apple wins the appeal and the ban is reversed. This way, it can be compensated for lost iPhone sales that were missed due to the ban.

Qualcomm, once a supplier of modem chips to the iPhone, also won a preliminary importation and sales ban against the iPhone in China. That order covers models from the iPhone 6s to the iPhone X, although Qualcomm wants to expand it to include the 2018 iPhone models. The court in China ruled that Apple infringed on a pair of Qualcomm patents related to software that resizes photos, and helps those with a touchscreen device manage their applications. Apple disseminated an update to iOS 12.1.2 that was supposed to have removed the offending software from the operating system, a claim that Qualcomm refuses to accept.

Apple and Qualcomm have sued each other a number of times, but more pressing for the latter is a trial that begins tomorrow. With judge Lucy Koh (famous for presiding over Apple v. Samsung) holding the gavel, the ruling of this case could force Qualcomm to change its entire business model. The FTC says that Qualcomm's current method of not requiring other chip makers to license its technology violates antitrust rules. Qualcomm gets paid by handset manufacturers based on a percentage of the entire retail price of a phone. Companies like Apple, Samsung and Intel argue that they should be charged a percentage of the value of any component inside a phone that uses Qualcomm's patent. Judge Koh has already ruled that Qualcomm's patents are standard essential and should be licensed on a Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) fashion.

FEATURED VIDEO

10 Comments

1. monkeyb

Posts: 409; Member since: Jan 17, 2018

Dont know how legal system works. Does anyone know why QC has to put this 1.5b bond? Also for random haters. “Companies like Apple, Samsung and Intel argue that they should be charged a percentage of the value of any component inside a phone that uses Qualcomm's patent.“ If you understand this, do not let your blind hatred support QC. Even Sammy is/was against them.

4. cmdacos

Posts: 4096; Member since: Nov 01, 2016

Except this has nothing to do with the high royalty price QC charges and Apple, Samsung et al agreed to initially. This has to do with stolen patents.

8. monkeyb

Posts: 409; Member since: Jan 17, 2018

There we go about Samsung et al agreeing initially. I simply cannot repeat that QC was the only one with CDMA tech then (Intel from this year as well). This CDMA tech is specific to what Verizon and Sprint use. If Sammy et al did not agree, they would have lost billions in sales. This tech was under FRAND. Stolen patents was mainly regarding software in China, which was resolved. As far as germany goes, we all know that QC lawyers played dirty to make sure certain evidence was not presented in court. QC lost this same case in US btw.

5. mootu

Posts: 1500; Member since: Mar 16, 2017

For the same reason the court in the US is holding over $7 billion of Apples money that it owes QC for modems from 2017. If QC wins it will receive the money, if Apple wins it will be returned.

9. monkeyb

Posts: 409; Member since: Jan 17, 2018

@mootu, thanks. I understand this better now.

2. Foxgabanna

Posts: 587; Member since: Sep 11, 2016

Yes. Qualcomm is not a customer friendly right now. I hope Apple and LG can take them down. I don’t know why Samsung caved.

6. mootu

Posts: 1500; Member since: Mar 16, 2017

Samsung didn't cave, they worked out a deal with Qualcomm the normal way. The only way Apple knows is playing the courts.

10. cheetah2k

Posts: 2213; Member since: Jan 16, 2011

Customer friendly? Would you be customer friendly with a "now" competitor when it involves stolen tech... LOL! As for the royalty saga between QC and Apple, Apple had agreed to pay the royalties, and then after using the tech, turned around and didn't pay. Everyone seems to be arguing QC are a bunch of ***holes, but this is the way the system works. If you're a company and dont want to pay the royalties, then innovate. Companies like Apple have no idea how to innovate anymore - they only steal. Case n point the QC vs Apple battle continues...

3. Alan01

Posts: 601; Member since: Mar 21, 2012

Monkeyb, good question. I added the response to the story: " The bond needs to be posted in case Apple wins the appeal and the ban is reversed. This way, it can be compensated for lost iPhone sales that were missed due to the ban." Regards, Alan

7. monkeyb

Posts: 409; Member since: Jan 17, 2018

Thanks Alan.

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.