{"id":11011,"date":"2018-10-16T16:10:22","date_gmt":"2018-10-16T23:10:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lapost.us\/?p=11011"},"modified":"2018-10-16T16:10:22","modified_gmt":"2018-10-16T23:10:22","slug":"judge-denies-qualcomm-ftc-request-for-more-time-to-reach-a-settlement-in-antitrust-lawsuit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lapost.us\/?p=11011","title":{"rendered":"Judge denies Qualcomm, FTC request for more time to reach a settlement in antitrust lawsuit"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>A federal judge has denied a request from Qualcomm and the U.S.\u00a0<a id=\"ORGOV0000248\" title=\"Federal Trade Commission\" href=\"http:\/\/www.sandiegouniontribune.com\/topic\/business\/federal-trade-commission-ORGOV0000248-topic.html\">Federal Trade Commission<\/a>\u00a0to delay a key ruling in an anti-monopoly lawsuit so the two sides can work on a potential settlement.<\/p>\n<p>The FTC and Qualcomm filed a joint motion on Monday seeking 30 days before San Jose U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh makes a ruling on whether Qualcomm must license its standard essential patents to rival chipmakers.<\/p>\n<p>Both sides said the delay would \u201cfacilitate the parties\u2019 ongoing discussions concerning the potential settlement of this litigation,\u201d according to court records.<\/p>\n<p>Koh denied the request within minutes without explanation, according to court filings. A hearing on whether Qualcomm is obligated to license rival chipmakers was scheduled for Thursday, Oct. 18, but Koh announced last week that she would make a ruling without taking oral arguments.<\/p>\n<aside class=\"trb_ar_sponsoredmod\" data-v-ntidd=\"1069578\" data-adloader-networktype=\"nativo\" data-withinviewport-options=\"bottomOffset=100\" data-load-method=\"trb.vendor.nativo.init\" data-load-type=\"method\">\n<div class=\"trb_ar_nt\"><\/div>\n<\/aside>\n<p>It is unclear when Koh will release a decision. Qualcomm declined to comment.<\/p>\n<p>In January 2017, the FTC sued Qualcomm for violating U.S. monopoly laws \u2013 joining regulators in China, South Korea and Taiwan to challenge Qualcomm\u2019s patent licensing business model.<\/p>\n<p>The lawsuit contends that Qualcomm has concocted a \u201cno license, no chips\u201d scheme that forces smartphone makers to overpay for licensing Qualcomm\u2019s core cellular patents.<\/p>\n<p>Phone makers acquiesce to high license fees because they need Qualcomm\u2019s market leading cellular modems, according to the FTC. Apple has made similar claims in a separate, ongoing legal fight.<\/p>\n<p>Qualcomm, which argues that cellular connectivity breathes life into smartphones, licenses its standard essential patents to smartphone makers at a rate of 3.25 percent of the wholesale price of the phone &#8212; up to a $400 cap.<\/p>\n<p>That translates to a maximum standard essential patent royalty of $13 per phone.<\/p>\n<p>While Qualcomm licenses its technology to smartphone makers, it does not license patents to rival chipmakers. The FTC contends Qualcomm is legally bound to license cellular modem competitors under its commitments to U.S. cellular standard setting organizations.<\/p>\n<p>The FTC has asked Judge Koh to make a partial summary judgment in the lawsuit based on this argument, which could shift Qualcomm\u2019s cellular patent licensing from the entire phone to individual components inside it.<\/p>\n<aside class=\"trb_ar_sponsoredmod\" data-v-ntidm=\"1069581\" data-withinviewport-options=\"bottomOffset=100&amp;topOffset=1000000\" data-load-method=\"trb.vendor.nativo.init\" data-load-type=\"method\"><\/aside>\n<p>Qualcomm counters that its patented cellular technology \u2013 which enables more data to move faster over airwaves \u2013 applies to myriad components inside a smartphone and network infrastructure, not just the cellular modem.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, the cellular industry has licensed patents at the device level for three decades. According to Qualcomm, no major holder of cellular standard essential patents licenses at the component level.<\/p>\n<p>Qualcomm also says the FTC is distorting the language in its agreements with standard setting organizations about who it is required to license. Three years ago, Chinese regulators examined Qualcomm\u2019s patent licensing business. While China fined the company $975 million for anti-trust violations, it allowed Qualcomm\u2019s business model of collecting royalties based on the price of the smartphone to remain intact.<\/p>\n<p>While several lawsuits with Apple rage on, Qualcomm has been working to stabilize its troubled patent licensing business in other pending litigation.<\/p>\n<p>Earlier this year, Samsung reached a new patent licensing\/business agreement with Qualcomm to ease concerns over potential patent lawsuits. Shortly afterward, Samsung withdrew its objections to Qualcomm\u2019s legal appeal of an $854 million fine and component-level licensing requirements imposed by South Korean regulators.<\/p>\n<p>Qualcomm also recently settled with regulators in Taiwan, who reduced a $770 million fine to $93 million and affirmed device-level patent licensing.<\/p>\n<p>The trial in the FTC lawsuit against Qualcomm is scheduled for Jan. 4. Qualcomm\u2019s shares gained 3 percent Tuesday to close at $66.12 on the Nasdaq exchange.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A federal judge has denied a&#46;&#46;&#46;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11011","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-u-s-a"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lapost.us\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11011","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lapost.us\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lapost.us\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lapost.us\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lapost.us\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11011"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lapost.us\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11011\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11012,"href":"https:\/\/lapost.us\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11011\/revisions\/11012"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lapost.us\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11011"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lapost.us\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11011"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lapost.us\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11011"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}