Qualcomm updates legal claim, alleges Apple tried to 'twist hands'


About a week ago, chipmaker Qualcomm filed a lawsuit against some of Apple's main contract manufacturers, seeking unpaid royalties for wireless tech used in Apple's devices. The former has now updated its claim to seek a preliminary injunction, in order to prevent 'irreparable harm' that might result, should Apple's partners be allowed to withhold payments any longer. Qualcomm now alleges that Apple's behaviour was a form of blackmail, trying to twist hands and force it to settle out of court.

A preliminary injunction, should it be approved by the court, would mean that the defendants may be ordered to make due payments to Qualcomm, before the case is closed. In order for this updated claim to succeed in court, the magistrates must be absolutely ce rtain that Qualcomm has what lawyers call 'a good claim' – one, where the defendant is clearly at fault, but damages cannot be quantified before the case is closed.

In its claim from May 17th, Qualcomm sought to obtain declaratory relief, on top of its claim for damages and unpaid sums. Declaratory relief is the softer version of a preliminary injunction, which asks the court to recognise that certain amounts of money are indeed due, but without ordering payment. In this regard, today's update tells us that Qualcomm is looking to put pressure on Apple and its partners and demonstrate its confidence in the proceedings.

"We are confident that our contracts will be found valid and enforceable but in the interim it is only fair and equitable that our licensees pay for the property they are using,” said Qualcomm's chief counsel, Don Rosenberg.

The battle between the two tech giants has been snowballing for months, with Tim Cook saying in January that this particular saga might drag on for quite a while. Their court dealings began at the beginning of this year, when the FTC challenged Qualcomm's decision to charge Cupertino higher royalties for its patented tech, effectively seeking to monopolize the market. Apple then submitted multiple claims against Qualcomm, with the latter responding with a barrage of counterclaims, seeking over $1 billion in unpaid royalties.

source: Barron's via 9To5Mac

FEATURED VIDEO

36 Comments

1. DoggyDangerous

Posts: 1028; Member since: Aug 28, 2015

Apple is the biggest patent troll. Should be fined heavily. Qualcomm's turn will be later.

10. jellmoo

Posts: 2588; Member since: Oct 31, 2011

I'm not quite convinced that you know what the term "patent troll" means...

20. TechieXP1969

Posts: 14967; Member since: Sep 25, 2013

Why? Because he said APple is one? With the stuff Apple tried to sue Samsung with. YES THEY WERE PATENT TROLLING!!!! pat·ent troll nouninformalderogatory noun: patent troll; plural noun: patent trolls a company that obtains the rights to one or more patents in order to profit by means of licensing or litigation, rather than by producing its own goods or services.

2. tedkord

Posts: 17357; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

I generally think there's too much patent BS going on. But it's difficult to garner any sympathy for Apple being forced to live in a world they created.

3. PhoneCritic

Posts: 1354; Member since: Oct 05, 2011

The only issue I see here is that Apple cannot force other OEM's ,that have legally binding contracts with QC, to stop payments to QC because they happen to also be Apple partners. As Bad as QC maybe the route Apple is taking is even worst - it is blindly clear that tactic is being monopolistic and should grab the attentions of regulators just as QC tactics did.

4. Doakie

Posts: 2478; Member since: May 06, 2009

Yeah, as if Apple doesn't have room in their profit margins to pay their parts suppliers and vendors a Just Rate to cover the licensing fees. There are so many things Apple does that make me hate them as a company. Greedy mother fudgers, gotta screw everyone to get some more money for their share holders.

21. TechieXP1969

Posts: 14967; Member since: Sep 25, 2013

Apple is effectivly doing what many of us may do So I will be fair and look from both sides. When we have a bill we want to dispute with a creditor, the main tool we have to get attention is to not pay it. But the fact is, even if they are wrong, they are on the winning end. If you don't pay, they cut off your services, or use of your cards until you do. Even if they are wrong, you are the one who will suffer. In this case, Apple can choose not to pay, but cant tell the others not too, because they are partners, not the same company. A contact is binding, even if you don't like the terms. By law if you signed it, you are bound by it and the creditor has a right to pursue any an all legal means to get payment. But Apple is taking th wwrong action and even if QC is a douchebag, which they are, Qualcomm does have one thing on its side...THE LAW. The law says once you negotiate a contract and sign you are bound to it. Before these companies sign, they both have lawyers view the legality of the contract before signing. Once you sign, you are bound to it. If there was any legal issues, they must be iron out before you sign. So usually lawyer will warn companies of legal issues in a contract. Qualcomm has kept it end of the contract, by providing the ptanets that these OEM's have license. Apple not paying now is "breaching" the contract they agreed too. If Apple didnt iron out things they didnt agree with, like cost at the beginning...then its to bad. They are bound to those cost until the contract is complete. Apple is goign to lose. These corps always have attorney's present when contracts need to be signed. If the lawyer read and did or didnt worn of issues, if you are aware of issues and still signed, you are bound. With QC goign to the ITC to stop the sells import/export of Apple products with QC tech, the fact is, the courts actually do need to by law uphold it. But of course, Apple has a lot of lobbying in the court and it will just get dragged.

15. TechieXP1969

Posts: 14967; Member since: Sep 25, 2013

Without seeing the contracts Apple and Qualcomm signed, I can't state whether they are Anti-Competitive. But I can say, when QC told Smasung that because the Exynos contains some QC tech which Samsung is paying QC to license and use, that QC says you can't sell you'r CPU to other outfits. I most certainly think that is Anti-competitive. As far as what QC may be charging Apple. First off, unless you spoend the money on R&D, none of us here can say what is a fair cost or not. Qualcomm spends BILLIONS on R&D and they make their own technology. SO if a company for example spent $10B on making the tech, they have a right to charge enough to recoup that and extra. After all you don't stay in business breaking even. Yiou have ot have some profit margin. Now I did read some info on how many of these companies charge for tech. Comparing Apple to Qualcomm, they don't always just charge a licensing fee. What they request is, they wnat a certain percentage from the actual product cost. So for example, in order to make a power adapter that is "CERTIFIED"{ for APple products, Appel charges a flat fee to license the tech needed. But then on top of that, when you sell your product with it, Apple also wants a cut. Now I consider that double dipping and Qualcomm does this too. My main issue is though, if you "SIGN" a contract agreeing to the terms and costs and you agree to pay, then you are bound by it until a court says otherwise. Apple who charges up the ass for their BS tech, has nerve to tell another company, you are charging to much for you tech is a hypocritical thing to do and for that I hope they lose. Apple you signed this deal. And if Apple is refusing to pay and tells its partners also not to pay, then they are violating terms of the deal they signed. Even if the court says, well there are things in this contract that are "questionable" , they can still ask Apple why did you sign. Now if the court says, well yes some of this stuff is illegal, they can tell Apple, you signed, so you have to pay for this contract because you agreed and Qualcomm goign forward, cannot have such things in the contract. But because you signed the agreement you are bound to it by law, even if some things may not be lawful. Since Apple doesn't have the cloak of the Feds protection after Apple turned its back on them over the terrorist phone, after Obama save Apple from a lawsuit they lost, Apple better watch out. Because they are going to lose more cases then they are goign to win.

29. kiko007

Posts: 7493; Member since: Feb 17, 2016

Jesus Christ, my first time logging in since last week and every Samsung/QC cock holster on the site happens to be talking legal matters... without reading a word of the source article!

30. MrElectrifyer

Posts: 3960; Member since: Oct 21, 2014

WTF? What logic do you have to defend your divine herd master's actions in this case? Do share...

31. kiko007

Posts: 7493; Member since: Feb 17, 2016

I'm not defending Apple in any way, just commenting on how completely off topic the majority of you actually intend to go. Half the front page is a fanboy circle jerk-dick scrub "haha my phone is amazing... kmp" nonsense. I'm not is the business of claiming masses of people are stupid (besides young Republicans, of course) but this site has become a cesspool of dimwitted trolls with nothing insightful to add towards any discussion, at all. That goes for Apple fanboys as well BTW. Whatever, how about you? Did you read the source article? What outcome do you think will come from such a plea?

32. MrElectrifyer

Posts: 3960; Member since: Oct 21, 2014

Unless the court is deep in apple's wallet, it's clear that this is merely another of apple's douchebag attempts of holding back large payments to a supplier in an attempt to force the supplier to settle and give them what they think they're self-entitled to. In this case, a cheaper price tag for someone else's product. If they're able to get away with such doucebag move, then every iPhone owner should be allowed to sue the crap out of apple for "charging too much".

33. kiko007

Posts: 7493; Member since: Feb 17, 2016

Agreed.

34. trojan_horse

Posts: 5868; Member since: May 06, 2016

Apple needs to get it's ass sued till kingdom come.

36. obedchuni

Posts: 334; Member since: Jun 16, 2014

Oh there u are son of a samsung and google, hope qc wins and apple looses, ya that's what in ur mind. Techie xp

* 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.