© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: A sign on the Qualcomm campus can be seen when chipmaker Broadcom Ltd announced an unsolicited $ 103 billion San Diego peer-to-peer Qualcomm Inc deal.
By Stephen Nellis
(Reuters) – Qualcomm (NASDAQ:) Inc has asked a federal judge on Tuesday not to enforce her decision to unleash competitors in the market for smart phone chips, as it is planned to appeal, which could take more than a year to go to court.
Qualcomm announced in federal court in San Jose, California, that it believes it may succeed in challenging US District Judge Lucy Koh's decision of May 21
Qualcomm argued that Koh's verdict raises "serious legal issues", among other things, because it ruled out evidence after a deadline of March 2018 – including the fact that Apple Inc (NASDAQ 🙂 dropped Qualcomm in favor of the competing chip supplier  Intel Corp (NASDAQ :), indicating that Qualcomm had no stranglehold on the market. Qualcomm also said that the FTC's theory in the lawsuit – that Qualcomm's patent licensing practices were a "tax" for smartphone makers who generated profits that Qualcomm then used to undercut its rivals – was unprecedented in antitrust law.
Qualcomm Koh's decision would force him to revise his licensing deals and even make offers to competing chip suppliers, which would disrupt his business in a way that would be impossible to settle if it wins on appeal. Qualcomm shares rose 23% in April, when a lawsuit was settled with Apple, but fell by 15% after Koh's decision.
"After Qualcomm has radically restructured its business relationships, Qualcomm will no longer be able to return to its pre-injunction business in an orderly fashion," the company said. "It will also not be possible to dissolve license agreements that have been renegotiated in the shadow of a later canceled order."
FTC officials did not immediately return a request for comment. Just hours before submission, FTC Commissioner Christine Wilson, appointed by President Donald Trump, wrote a comment in the Wall Street Journal, calling Koh's ruling "alarming" and asking her to re-examine it.
"I speak for myself and not for the FTC or another commissioner. I encourage higher courts to rethink the wisdom of the judge 's conclusions, "Wilson wrote. In the opinion of legal scholars abroad, this decision is both bad and unlawful , "
San Diego – based Qualcomm manufactures cell phone processors and modem chips, but makes the most of its profits by licensing its technology to mobile phone manufacturers.
Koh decided that Qualcomm 's patent licensing practices should" stigmatized and ordered the company to renegotiate licensing agreements with customers at fair prices without curtailing supplies.
It also ruled that Qualcomm should offer licensing of its patents. Fair conditions for competing chipmakers such as MediaTek Inc. Qualcomm Licensing Licenses to Other Chassis Manufacturers May Lower Qualcomm's Royalties Up to $ 20 per Phone and a Few US Dollars Per Device.
The judge also said Qualcomm could not make exclusivity arrangements that prevent competitors from taking chip s to smartphone makers like Apple and Samsung Electronics (KS 🙂 Co Ltd. To sell Koh, Qualcomm asked to be monitored for seven years to make sure that it met their remedies. If Koh refuses Qualcomm's request to defer the decision during the appeal process, Qualcomm will ask the US Circuit Court for the ninth circuit to do the same. The company's legal remedy for the legal grounds of the judgment will continue, even if it withdraws its request for deferral of its provisions in the course of the proceedings.
Qualcomm had argued in a January 10-day non-jury trial in front of Koh that it holds a dominant position in the market for smart phone chips through technological leadership and does not freeze out rivals.
Fusion Media or others affiliated with Fusion Media assume no liability for any loss or damage to the Confidence in the information contained on this Web site, including data, quotations, graphics and buy / sell signals. Please inform yourself comprehensively about the risks and costs associated with trading on the financial markets. This is one of the riskiest possible forms of investment.