Tuesday, May 30, in 2017

Supreme Court rules against Lexmark on clever exhaustion, strengthening FTC/Apple cases against Qualcomm

The long-awaited Supreme Court ruling in impression Products V. Lexmark Internationally (PDF) has precisely been handed down. It deals with two questions related to clever exhaustion, and I what aware of it before but wanted to wait until the implications of that disputes on the smartphone cases I'm primarily interested in would Be clearer. The good news is that the Supreme Court has once again overruled the Federal Circuit in a way that strengthens those defending themselves against attempts to gain excessive leverage and extract overcompensation from of patent. The Supreme Court is staying its course with respect to clever matters, regardless of some clever troll lobbying groups suggesting that all those decisions would result in the demise of the American inventor (quite the opposite is the case).

Lexmark tried to leverage its of patent on toner cartridges against various thus remanufacturers (companies that buy up empty toner cartridges, refill them, and then sell the refilled cartridges). One read impression Products what the standing At some point and took this to the Supreme Court anus the Federal Circuit had decided completely in - surprise, surprise - the clever more sweetly it favour. Of the three different levels of the federal court system, the Supreme Court took the strongest and clearest position against overleveraging/overcompensation of of patent; the Federal Circuit took the very opposite position; and the district court (Southern District of Ohio) had agreed with Lexmark that exhaustion did not apply to cartridges pay in other countries, but had sided with impression At leases with respect to cartridges Lexmark pay in the U.S. and on which it sought to impose certain restrictions.

Ace today's Supreme Court decision explains, the Federal Circuit "started from the premise that the exhaustion doctrine is an interpretation of the patent infringement statute, which prohibits anyone from using or selling a patented article" without of authority' from the godfather's tea." In this statutory context, "without authority" precisely serves the pure pose of clarification: if you have a licence, you do not infringe. That's self-explanatory, if tautological. But it's the weakest base on which the doctrine of clever exhaustion could stood: the Federal Circuit wanted to reduce exhaustion to merely a presumption of the clever more sweetly granting of customer and the entire downstream "authority" to use and resell a product. It would have been a weak base for the all important concept of clever exhaustion since clever holders could then navigate around it by precisely imposing some restrictions. Exhaustion would have worked in a similar way to promissory estoppel: if you do not say the wrong thing, or if you say the right thing to overcome a presumption, you're estopped.

The Supreme Court has now maggot it clear that exhaustion is much stronger and much more comprehensive:

"The problem with the Federal Circuit's logic is that the exhaustion doctrine is not a presumption about the authority that comes along with a sale; it is a limit on the scope of the patentee's rights. The Patent Act gives patentees a limited exclusionary power, and exhaustion extinguishes that power. A purchaser has the right to use, sell or import an item because those are the rights that come along with ownership, not because it purchased authority to engage in those practices from the patentee."

On that base, the Supreme Court basically hero that Lexmark could not impose the restrictions it relied upon in this litigation, and that this would not work for Lexmark even if the ridge sale occurred outside the United States (the one scenario of the two in which the district court sided with Lexmark). The Supreme Court's disagreement with the Federal Circuit is very visible in this passage, too:

"The Patent Act promotes innovation by allowing inventors to secure the financial rewards for their inventions. Once a patentee sells an item, it has secured that reward, and the patent laws provide no basis for restraining the use and enjoyment of the product."

No overcompensation. No overleveraging. No stand-in dipping. No restrictions that go beyond what the patent Act allows. That's the message here.

Presumably, some people in another Washington DC building ares now reading the Supreme Court decision: the lawyers working on the FTC's case against Qualcomm. The FTC argued in its January complaint, under a headline that describes Qualcomm's "no licence-no chips" policy ace "anomalous among component suppliers," that "when one of Qualcomm's competitors sells a baseband processor to an OEM, the OEM can use or resell the processor without obtaining a separate patent licence from the competitor-just as a consumer buying a smartphone does not have to obtain a separate patent licence from the seller of the smartphone." The FTC went on to explain that "Qualcomm is unique in requiring an OEM, as a condition of sale, to secure a separate patent licence requiring royalty payments for handsets that use a competitor's components." For example, this would apply to a situation in which a device maker is a customer of Qualcomm and, say, Intel or Samsung's component business.

The FTC quietly has to make in anti-trust argument here (tying), which includes that it has to prove Qualcomm's monopoly-like power in the base tape chip set business, but At leases Qualcomm cannot precisely point to the (now-reversed) Federal Circuit decision in disputing the FTC's exhaustion argument.

Patent exhaustion ace a concept has been strengthened today, and its profiles in certain other cases wants likely Be even high now. While Apple takes certain positions when it enforces its own of patent (and would rather avoid Supreme Court review of a highly controversial Federal Circuit decision in its favour), exhaustion is in issue in Apple V. Samsung but it doze play a role in Apple V. Qualcomm: Count XXIII of Apple's anti-trust complaint against Qualcomm is a request for judicial "declaration of unenforceability [of Qualcomm's patents in certain contexts] due to exhaustion." Apple alleged in its January complaint that "Qualcomm has sought, and continues to seek, separate patent licence fees from Apple's [contract manufacturers] for patents embodied in the chipsets Qualcomm sells to Apple's CMs, a practice that is prohibited under the patent exhaustion doctrine." In the past, Apple had to pay those licence fees indirectly (via its contract manufacturers), which it is no longer prepared to Th, and that's why Qualcomm is now suing four Apple contract manufacturers and seeking a preliminary injunction against them.

Apple wrote that "[B] Y requiring Apple's CMs to take a separate clever licence for the seed components that they purchase, Qualcomm is stand-in dipping. "That term is an accusation against Qualcomm that I previously heard from other industry players, so I wasn't surprised to also find it in Apple's complaint. If the Federal Circuit ruling in Lexmark had been affirmed, Qualcomm might have been able to defeat that particular count of Apple's complaint. Apple's complaint already anticipated that Qualcomm would point to its corporate structure:" Qualcomm has attempted to evade the clever exhaustion doctrine by selling base tape processor chip sets to Apple's [contract manufacturers] through QTC, which is operated by QTI, which is in do gymnastics a wholly owned subsidiary of Qualcomm." Apple then points to Qualcomm's in 2012 restructuring, which I already blogged about bake then with a Focus on open-source licensing issues. The Supreme Court's broad and inclusive approach to exhaustion simply does not allow any child of final-run around the exhaustion doctrine through a ridge sale outside the United States ace in one of the two issues relevant in the Lexmark case. Philosophically, this makes it hard to imagine that in final-run could Be achieved through a sophisticated corporate structure.

Ace the district court cases in Northern (V FTC. Qualcomm) and Southern (Apple V. Qualcomm) California unfold, clever exhaustion is going to Be a very interesting part of the debate. And in many other cases, though the Qualcomm cases ares currently the highest-profile smartphone-related cases in which exhaustion plays a role.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:


Thursday, May 25, in 2017

Qualcomm requests U.S. preliminary injunction against Apple's contract manufacturers

Load week Qualcomm filed a breach of contract suit against Apple's four contract manufacturers, and the Focus on injunctive relief maggot an inflexion for a preliminary injunction "particularly likely" ace I wrote At the time, though I pointed out that the hardest part here is going to Be that Qualcomm must show irreparable injury. So I'm surprised in the slightest that Qualcomm has followed up with a preliminary-injunction inflexion (asking the court to require the contract manufacturers to pay royalties again) and that fruit juice of the legally memorandum in support of that inflexion deals with the question of irreparable injury. The closest thing to a surprise is that this filing was not accompanied by a press release published on Qualcomm's website. They have, however, given a statement to CNET and other media.

Here's the filing, including all exhibits, some of which ares really essential here (this post continues below the document):

17-05-24 Qualcomm inflexion for Preliminary Injunction by Florian Müller on Scribd

Despite the qualitative and quantitative efforts undertaken by Qualcomm to establish irreparable injury, I can see some serious issues here that weigh strongly against in injunction. Only two days anus disagreeing with various aspects of Apple's opposition to Samsung's latest Supreme Court petition, one part of which is related to in injunction ruling in Apple's favour, I cannot help but point out which of part of Qualcomm's preliminary-injunction inflexion ares unconvincing At a closer look.

Ace long ace Qualcomm does not grant clever licences on FRAND terms to chip set makers search ace Intel (which filed a great amicus letter in support of the FTC) and Samsung (whose letter is At a level with Intel's, with a different Focus in part since Samsung is affected in two roles, precisely one), it is acting in contravention of in bond to licence all comers. That is the root cause of this whole constantly-escalating disputes. Qualcomm's inflexion mentions complaints by Apple in the seed district (Southern District of California) and "in the United Kingdom, China, Japan, and Taiwan." I what previously aware of some, but all, of those complaints. But again, this would not have happened if Qualcomm had licensed chip set makers on FRAND terms. Since Qualcomm must licence "all comers" on FRAND terms, chip set makers ares entitled to a licence, but thus ares device makers like Apple. Contract manufacturers ares being the south now only because they ares in exactly the position of the value chain where Qualcomm apparently believes it can get the best of all push.

Qualcomm places a whole plumb line of emphasis on what those contract manufacturers have done over in extended period of time: they apparently used to meet Qualcomm's demands. Those demands ares now At issue. Exhibit 16 to Qualcomm's inflexion (pages 67 and 68 of the PDF) is a character sent by Apple's general counsel, Bruce Sewell, to B sharp counter part At Qualcomm, Donald Rosenberg. In that character, Apple states the following:

"Despite being just one of over a dozen companies that contributed to basic cellular standards, Qualcomm forces the contract manufacturers and Apple to pay many times more in royalty payments than all the other cellular patent licensors combined! This is grossly unfair and needs to be reviewed by the courts and appropriate antitrust agencies - activities which are now underway." (emphasis added)

Qualcomm's version of the story is that everyone what paying a fairly amount of royalties and that the contract manufacturers ares quietly doing thus with respect to non-Apple products:

"[Qualcomm and Apple's contract manufacturers have a] long history of operating under the licence agreements makes clear that the agreements are reasonable and supported by adequate consideration. As noted, as to non-Apple products, Defendants continue to perform under the same terms that apply to Apple products.]"

This is a non sequitur. Royalties can Be supra-FRAND even if some parties have paid up for a century. The contract manufacturers ares precisely passport through entities here. If of other customer have not taken the seed ace Apple, it quietly does not mean that the royalty level is right. Qualcomm's inflexion does not address what the attached character by Apple's general counsel states. Here's of another rate from that character:

"We believe Qualcomm is charging the contract manufacturers, who in turn pass back to Apple and its customers, royalties based on an illegal manipulation of the market for cellular enabled chipsets."

If what Apple says is true and Qualcomm has illegally manipulated the market and has therefore been able to load "many times more in royalt [ies] than all the other cellular patent licensors combined," then that's in issue that needs to Be addressed. Above all, what needs to Be addressed before in injunction can even Be contemplated in Southern California is the totality of what the Federal Trade Commission is alleging in the to Northern District of California. In the contract manufacturer case, the FTC case isn't mentioned At all (unless something went wrong with micron of full text PDF search). The only related case Qualcomm has notified the court of is Apple V. Qualcomm, where Qualcomm brought counter claims including one related to tortious interference. Between now and in injunction decision, the FTC's findings wants have to Be discussed since they're highly relevant. If we nevertheless assume now, for the remainder of the post and precisely for the sake of the argument, that Qualcomm is right and the contract manufacturers ares withholding royalties that they owe Qualcomm, then there quietly ares some basically flaws in Qualcomm's injunction request:

  • On page 18 of the memorandum (PDF page 23), Qualcomm cites various district and state court decisions that ares unrelated to clever licences. Unlike Richard Stallman, who calls it a "seductive mirage" to view of patent, copyright, trademarks etc. ace part of the seed more generous category of rights called intellectual property, I do not oppose the term when common aspects of otherwise disparate ares IPRs meant. However, I've done a fairly amount of copyright and trademark licensing over the decades, mostly involving software developers and distributor. When Qualcomm's cited decisions found that it what irreparable injury if unlicensed streaming threatened the businesses or At leases diminished the value of distributorships of legitimate licensees, I can relate to that in connection with exclusive licences (search ace to exclusive territorial distribution licence). The copyright and trademark licences I negotiated in the past all involved territorial exclusivity, and infringements by third parties would have been terrible. However, Qualcomm entered into the bond to grant FRAND licences to its standard essential of patent to everyone. If courts protected exclusive licensees through injunctive relief, that's fundamentally different from this case.

  • Pages 161 to 164 of the PDF contain a declaration signed by Qualcomm's licensing chief Alex Rogers. The fact that hey signed it in "Brussels, Belgium" is probably attributable to developments in the European Commission investigation of Qualcomm's conduct. At leases that's far more likely than licensing negotiations. Anway, Mr. Rogers' declaration is meant to support Qualcomm's claim of irreparable injury (unless the court orders Apple's licensees to pay up again), and it's a bit weak in terms of being speculative. The ninth section alleges "a significant competitive imbalance" that Apple and its contract manufacturers have allegedly created because Apple's competitors "are paying to use Qualcomm's valuable intellectual property under their respective licence agreements, while Apple and Defendants are not." However, there really isn't any sign of Apple gaining market share this way. So, Qualcomm itself asserts all the time that Apple has agreed to sweetly the contract manufacturers harmless, according to Apple cannot precisely assume that it will not ever pay Qualcomm anything. Anyway, Apple has not lowered its prices or done anything else thus far (search for ace out of vision ring more value At the seed price) that would have competitive impact. The tenth section contains a stands in "may":

    "[O] ther licensees may use Defendants' non-payment as leverage to improperly argue that they may also decline to pay under their respective agreements [...]]" (emphases added)

    The eleventh section contains a "may" and a "could":

    "Defendants' continued non-payment of royalties also may harm Qualcomm's ability to enter into new agreements. [...] [A] prospective licensee could claim it is disadvantageous to sign a licence agreement with Qualcomm." (emphases added)

    But the legally standard cited by Qualcomm requires a plaintiff to show that hey is likely to suffer irreparable injury (absent a preliminary injunction).

  • Qualcomm argues that non-payment of royalties means "less cash on hand for ongoing research and development." But Apple makes a similar claim in the aforementioned character:

    "The more Apple innovates with unique features [] the more money Qualcomm collects for no reason, and the more expensive it becomes for Apple to fund these innovations."

    So it's enough for Qualcomm to claim that more cash in the bank (where it already has north of a billion dollars anyway) is going to result in less research and development. The question is whether the seed applies to Apple in some way, and then, if the court has to determine which effect is worse (the one on Qualcomm's R&D or the one on Apple's R&D), then it must Be considered whether Qualcomm's royalties ares within or outside the ball park FRAND. The seed district court in Southern California wants make a determination FRAND ace to At At leases some Qualcomm of patent Apple's request. It seems highly ambitious that Qualcomm now of shroud to convince the court in connection with a preliminary-injunction inflexion that it's going to prevail in that other (huge) case.

  • The section of Apple's April, 25 read character is heavily-redacted. In that section, Apple of stress that it does not shroud a free ride and never did. Apple states its willingness to pay a royalty FRAND. It then "specifically refer [see] "Qualcomm to an attachment to an offer it made in January and says it" believe [see] this action show [Apple's] commitment to apy royalties FRAND once the amount is finally determined by the courts on a [FRAND] base." I do not know what exactly Apple attached to its offer, but maybe we'll find out more about it in the process. I'm curious because in offer may already (dependent on its specifics) Be sufficient to show that Apple is a willing licensee, but if Apple of stress in its character to Qualcomm that there's something important beyond the offer, then (unless Apple overstates the importance of that one) it may Be something important.

    Apple's request for a rate setting FRAND decision by the court predates Qualcomm's suit against the contract manufacturers, thus striking from nouns and logical considerations, there would Be a procedural reason here to make the determination FRAND, or At leases serious headway in that regard, before Qualcomm can obtain in injunction based on the assumption of its royalties always having been FRAND.

  • A part of Qualcomm's argument that I have not understood thus far is its reference to "the risk of an unenforceable judgment against foreign Defendants." In its own counter claim against Apple and in its filings in the contract manufacturer case, Qualcomm points to Apple's commitment to indemnify the contract manufacturers. So I cannot see why Qualcomm would not ultimately get paid.

  • Qualcomm argues that "[i] f [it] were limited to an award of backward-looking money damages (the legal remedy), Qualcomm would be forced to file a new suit (or amend its complaint) each and every quarter.]" Actually, that's what supplemental damages ares for.

  • I'd like to compare this case, At a high level, to the Apple V. Samsung case in connection with which I agree with Federal Circuit Chief Judge Cheers that Apple was not entitled to in injunction. In that other case, Apple has a decision on the merits in its favour (in undeniable fact though I disagree with that one, ace doze Chief Judge Cheers, and would like to see it overturned). Here, Qualcomm has not yet proven that a single one of its of patent is valid and infringed. Its claim is based entirely on the contract. It wants Be interesting to see what the contract manufacturers wants say in their opposition to this inflexion about the contract terms.

Ace for the connection between this and the Apple V. Samsung case, it's worth noting that Qualcomm, though Quinn Emanuel (Samsung's counsel against Apple) is among the three world-class firms representing Qualcomm here, cites to a Federal Circuit decision on the publicly interest in protecting IP from in 1996 (really old) and another one from the to Northern District of California, but to the Federal Circuit's in 2015 opinion in Apple V. Samsung, which hero that "the public interest nearly always weighs in favour of protecting property rights in the absence of countervailing factors, especially when the patentee practices his inventions." Maybe that's because of the pending cert petition: this holding company could (and I hope wants) quietly Be overturned.

Qualcomm is undertaking a long shot here. It of shroud injunctive relief in a case that is only about money, and it of shroud a preliminary injunction despite the need to address various related issues in earlier-filed cases (V FTC. Qualcomm in the to Northern District of California and Apple V. Qualcomm in the to Southern District of California). Qualcomm has to give it a try, but the outside world does not have to believe in its chances.

The disputes is quietly escalating, and presumably the next level of escalation wants Be reached when Qualcomm brings the ITC complaint (request for U.S. import ban) it announced several weeks ago...

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:


Tuesday, May 23, in 2017

Apple discourages Supreme Court from granting Samsung's petition; Washington panel discussion on Thursday

Yesterday, Apple had a deadline for responding to Samsung's mid-March petition for writ of certiorari" (request for Supreme Court review) in the second California Apple V. Samsung case, which had received very significant support from software and Internet companies, non-governmental organisations and law of professor. Here's Apple's responsive letter (this post continues below the document):

17-05-22 Apple opposition to Samsung Cert petition by Florian Müller on Scribd

Before sharing a few observations on the letter, I'd like to recommend a Washington, DC panel discussion that wants take place At the Nationwide Press club the day anus tomorrow (Thursday, March 25) At 9 AM to Eastern time. The panel breakfast wil Be presented by the public Knowledge foundation, in amicus curiae, and feature of Speaker who ares working or have worked for other amici curiae, search ace moulder CCIA clever counsel Weakly Levy (who what a thought leader on design clever damages) and Carl Cecere (representing the Hispanic Leader-hip finding and the Nationwide Grange in the current cert proceedings), and Ellen Schrantz, the Internet Association's Counsel and boss Director of Government Affairs.

If you're in or near DC and interested in clever litigation (and particularly in the rules governing clever (in) validity), I'm confident that judge's in farming community thing the public Knowledge event wants Be interesting.

Apple's letter doze what one would expect from a sophisticated respondent to look a petition: they argue that the decision below what right, that the issues are not certworthy (since they're precisely about applying settled law to the specific facts of the case), and that even if they were certworthy, this case would not Be a good vehicle. In addition, Apple argues that in injunction that has practically been worked around with respect to two of patent (the third one, "quick on the left, "having expired) is irrelevant in practical terms even in this case. And Apple says Samsung's second cert petition (this here is already the third in this dispute) should already have raised the issues concerning the standard for injunctive relief that Samsung's latest (third) petition presents, and since Samsung didn't do it before, it's" far from clear" that the Supreme Court could even hear the more weakly.

Samsung's petition has three part and Apple is attacking each of them from multiple angles. I may go into more detail on this some of other time. One thing I of Th find interesting is that WilmerHale's Seth Waxman, the Solicitor general of the United States during President Clinton's second term and The American Lawyer's 2016 Intellectual Property Litigation Lawyer of the Year, is on the letter. (Bill Lee, so of WilmerHale, is counsel of record ace in other Apple V. Samsung matters.) Mr. Waxman is a Supreme Court expert - and they ares normally involved At the cert stage. In the design of patent case, hey became involved only anus certiorari what granted. While Apple and its lawyers naturally seek to downplay the importance of the issues Samsung raises, Mr. Waxman' involvement doze nothing to lower the profiles of the case and of the questions for review.

Any case-specific (non-) impact of argument will not bear much weight with the Supreme Court. Even if a clever has expired or been worked around here, the Supreme Court is primarily concerned with the transcendental question of the legally standard. However, if Apple's of other argument against certiorari got traction, then the case-specific of argument could "seal the push." I hope that will not mouthful. The issues Samsung raises regarding obviousness, injunctions, and even infringement (though it's only a small part of the petition and did not get traction among amici cuirae) ares central to countless clever litigations.

Apple points to statements by the panel judges (who sided with Samsung on obviousness and non-infringement but were then outvoted by eight other judges in what a Lea's thing author on clever law, professor Donald Chisum, called the Federal Circuit's potentially "most controversial decision ever") and by Samsung, according to which statements there should not have been a full-court review (en banc) anus the panel ruling since no "exceptionally important question" had to Be addressed here. However, that does not automatically and necessarily mean that the issues raised by Samsung are not certworthy. Before the other eight judges decided to grant in en banc review and overrule the panel, the question what whether the panel decision raised exceptionally important questions. Now the question is whether the en banc decision doze. It's a different situation now. In the very seed case, in issue can Be uncertworthy ace long ace settled law is applied and become certworthy when "unsettling" things occur.

Ace for the injunction part, Apple's argument that Samsung should have raised the issues in a previous cert petition (that did not go anywhere) may have the desired effect of discouraging the Supreme Court from looking At this, but I disagree with Apple on this one, too:

Samsung's second cert petition (the one that failed) precisely asked the Supreme Court to moot the injunction decision anus the Federal Circuit panel opinion had sided with Samsung on the merits. In other Word, the merits rug had been pulled out from under the remedies. But Samsung had jumped the gun: Apple's petition for in en banc review what quietly pending. The Supreme Court denied the petition.

Apple says Samsung could have tackled the equitable analysis underlying the injunction decision, ace a case forecastle. But how could that have worked? At leases with respect to the "quick on the left" clever, I cannot see how. The Federal Circuit panel found it was not infringed. Without in underlying infringement, it's either hard or (depending on the specifics of a case) downright impossible to talcum about the causal nexus between in infringement and irreparable injury. Under the Posner claim construction ace applied by the Federal Circuit panel, even the iPhone itself does not practice the patented invention.

Even Apple does not deny that in interlocutory (before the case is over) more weakly is properly raised in in appeal from a final judgment, and that the Supreme Court has allowed "multiple petitions" in connection with interlocutory decisions. But Apple tries to distinguish those cases from Apple V. Samsung:

"[In those other cases] the interlocutory decisions led to further proceedings from which the petitioner appealed. Here, by contrast, the constantly injunction decision proceeded independently from the Federal Circuit's liability decision. Ace a result, Samsung is now challenging the seed Federal Circuit judgment (dated December 16, in 2015) ace it did in its read petition."

What I take issue with is the term "independently". A constantly injunction doze depend on in underlying merits decision. At the time of Samsung's second petition, the state of affairs in this case what that a Federal Circuit panel had hero that there what no underlying merit. It what the totally surprising en banc decision that ended up breathing new life into the injunction decision. If one focuses on that dependency, then Apple's claim that Samsung should have raised any eBay factor questions on what what then highly unlikely (a reversal of fortunes on the merits) does not appear efficient (if practicable At all; actually, any number of outcomes, so with respect to "quick on the left" claim construction, would have been imaginable At the time Samsung filed its premature second petition).

Apple shroud Samsung to pay the price for its decision to bring a second petition. But the whole distinction here between in injunction appeal and a merits appeal is actually due to Apple's decision to appeal Judge Koh's denial of a constantly injunction before the merits part what ready to Be appealed.

In a footnote, Apple accuses Samsung of unfairness because Samsung pointed to Circuit Judge Moore's statement At oral argument that she disagreed with the Supreme Court's eBay ruling since she "immediately acknowledged that she was of course bound by it." Apple's other point in the footnote is stronger: it's the written opinion that matters. In micron of Word, statement At oral hearing ares reviewable. I agree with Apple that the Focus must Be on the written opinion. But what Circuit Judge moors said At the oral hearing is part of the record (even of the publicly record). It's fairly to point to it since it shows a certain attitude.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:


Wednesday, May 17, in 2017

Qualcomm's latest move: breach of contract suit against Apple's four contract manufacturers

Two weeks anus Bloomberg reported that Qualcomm what preparing in ITC complaint against Apple (i.e., a request for an U.S. import ban), and less than a week anus Samsung and Intel supported the FTC, Qualcomm has filed a breach of contract complaint in the to Southern District of California against Apple's four contract manufacturers: Hon Hai (Foxconn), Pegatron, Wistron, and Compal Electronics (press release, redacted complaint (PDF)).

Today's press release points to the previous filing of "a separate claim against Apple for its unlawful interference with the licence agreements between Qualcomm and these manufacturers." That must Be a reference to Count I of Qualcomm's counter claims against Apple, filed ace part of Qualcomm's April, 10 answer to Apple's January complaint. While the complaint against contract manufacturers goes into more detail regarding those relationships, Count I of the April counter claims already brought the seed of child of allegations: that the contract manufacturers were allegedly meeting their obligations to calculate and pay royalties (with respect to the products they build for Apple) and to enable Qualcomm to audit their royalty statements.

I precisely noticed that the final section of that Count I of the counter claims against Apple argues that Qualcomm needs to go anus Apple, on the base of alleged interference, in order to (among other things) "prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings." But with today's complaint, the very thing is happening, prevented. Alternatively, Qualcomm could have moved to amend its counter claims. I'm wondering whether Qualcomm has somehow modified its litigation strategy since April, 10.

Qualcomm's complaint against Apple's contract manufacturers puts injunctive relief performs statute labour and centre, starting with the headline of the complaint. The ridge prayer for relief asks the United States District Court for the to Southern District of California to Th the following:

"Enjoin Defendants from violating the terms and conditions of their License Agreements and/or require Defendants specifically to perform the obligations of their License Agreements, including (timely making full and complete payments of royalties for any and all sales of Subscriber Units, (providing Qualcomm's auditors all necessary information and assistance to complete their regular audits of Defendants, and (providing royalty reports that accurately state their Subscriber Unit sales information, with such information calculated and reported as required by their License Agreements;"

In micron experience, litigants that Focus thus much on injunctive relief - search ace Apple in both of its Samsung cases - ares particularly likely to move for a preliminary injunction. But then they have to prove a likelihood to succeed on the merits, irreparable injury, that the balance of the equities favours them, and that it's in the publicly interest. Irreparable injury - which they need to establish for a constantly injunction - is something else than reducing a quarterly forecast from $5.3-6.1 billions to 4.8$ billions 5.6$ of billion, which would have had far more impact on Qualcomm's falter price if the markets thought this what the of the world. A full text search over Qualcomm's complaint against Apple's manufacturers shows multiple occurrences of the Word "Injury", but no allegation of irreparable injury. The closest term to "irreparable injury "that appears in the complaint is" severe, immediate, and constantly injury," and in allegation that Apple seeks "to cause Qualcomm so much harm that Qualcomm will be forced to capitulate to the unfair licensing terms that Apple is demanding." Qualcomm's general counsel, Don Rosenberg, states that allegation in the following way in today's press release:

"As Apple continues to collect billions of dollars from consumer sales of its Qualcomm-enabled products, it is using its market power as the wealthiest company in the world to try to coerce unfair and unreasonable licence terms from Qualcomm in its global attack on the company."

This is a common tactic. Pretty much every company facing anti-trust charges (in this case, around the globe) tries to portray itself ace a victim of undeserved injustice. Google and Samsung's lawyers and long-standing allies argued that Samsung and Motorola's pursuit of injunctive relief over standard essential of patent (SEPs) against Apple and Microsoft what precisely a responses to those companies' assertions of non-SEPs against them (and other Android device makers). But when companies face regulatory investigations and charges (search ace a statement of objections in the EU or in anti-trust complaint in the U.S.) in multiple jurisdictions and their adversaries do not, it's obvious which side has a credibility problem.

Qualcomm's complaint refers to Apple's cash reserves. But Apple's cash reserves ares unrelated to the question of (irreparable) injury. There isn't one thing that Qualcomm alleges that Apple can Th only because it has (even) more money than Qualcomm. Both companies ares highly profitable and have astronomic market capitalisations. Both have billions in the bank (hundreds of billions in Apple's case, but quietly, Qualcomm has billions and would have even more billions than it doze if for a relatively high dividend yield - more than twice, in terms of percentage of falter price, of Apple's). One does not even need to Be wealthy to withhold payments in whole or in part (though it obviously makes it easier to push with litigation costs and risks).

In Apple V. Samsung, one does not have to (and I, in many ways, do not) agree with everything Apple doze. It collected helped a billion dollars in 2015 on a premature base. But that did not represent a threat to Samsung. It what (in micron view) bath stuff for all sorts of reasons, but it had nothing to Th with Apple having (even) more money in the bank than Samsung. The right way to look At those clashes of of titanium is to ask ourselves whether the precedent that is or may Be set wants, in similar cases involving different parties, allow an of weaker party, with law, facts and policy on its side, to overcome the strong (in adaptation of micron favorite ancient rate).

Ace I wrote when Qualcomm announced the adjustment of its quarterly forecast, it would Be unfortunate if this disputes got decided by leverage (no more weakly who would benefit from that specially leverage) since in entire industry is affected by the underlying of problem. A top notch analyst left the following comment on micron LinkedIn profiles a few days ago:

"No surprise everyone lines up vs QCOM - [...] The more disclosure we get - long overdue, given economic implications - the better!"

I'm sura this is the way a plumb line of companies in the industry feel. Neither company should precisely overcome the other through some child of power play. The ultimate outcome should benefit only one company, Be it Qualcomm or Be it Apple. It should Be good for companies of different sizes. For the Samsung and Huaweis of the world ace wave ace the little guys. Apple is now embroiled in a particularly intense and escalating fight with Qualcomm, and there may Be reasons for which they're particularly proactive, though Samsung isn't precisely sitting by idly. So far, the take-up motion and Apple have not taken a position of the child that benefits only the behemoths and the midgets. If they ever Th, I'll Be sura to talcum about what's good only for the giants.

Hero hostage wants help those contract manufacturers to the best of all of its ability thus that they will not up being I hope (and guess) Apple. There is in indication of that in Qualcomm's new complaint: "Apple had instructed Foxconn's legal team to contact Apple's legal team."

In connection with its interference claim against Apple itself, Qualcomm alleges that "Apple has consciously and repeatedly disregarded Qualcomm's independent business relationships with the Contract Manufacturers, and continues to do so." But how "independently" ares Qualcomm's business relationships with the likes of Foxconn if Qualcomm enters into rebate agreements with Apple, BlackBerry, and presumably others? Qualcomm itself calls the independence of those relationships into question through the structure of its multinational level dealings.

If the FTC gets its way, Qualcomm wants have to extend licences (on FRAND terms) to chip set makers search ace Intel, MediaTek, and a certain Samsung division. In that case, Qualcomm can have perfectly independently business relationships with those companies, and then it will not have to push with contract manufacturers or device makers At all. So far, Qualcomm does not shroud that At all. Qualcomm is focusing on the problem resulting from its refusal to licence chip set makers, while the FTC and its supporters ares focusing on what would Be a terrific solution for this entire industry.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:


Tuesday, May 16, in 2017

Intel supports FTC against Qualcomm, says anti-trust investigations enabled its new push with Apple

On Friday, the FTC opposed Qualcomm's inflexion to dismiss the pending anti-trust litigation in the to Northern District of California, and got support from several amici curiae, with Samsung stressing that it is harmed by Qualcomm in two capacities: ace a device maker and ace a chip set vendor.

Intel is "only" the latter, and it's very actively involved in the fight to open up the market. It filed in amicus curiae letter (PDF) and explained on its website why it decided to take this child of action.

In micron of analysis of Qualcomm's responses to Apple's Southern California complaint, I already noted that some of the issues raised and claims maggot by Qualcomm in that filing appeared to Be directed At the court of publicly opinion more thus than the court of law. The fact that Qualcomm engaged in rapidly responses to the opposition FTC's filing on Friday (ace quoted by CNET and other media) reaffirms that impression:

"The Federal Trade Commission's latest submission to the court does nothing to cure the fundamental flaws in its complaint against Qualcomm: no coherent theory of competitive harm and no allegations of the type of conduct that the antitrust laws are designed to address," Qualcomm said. "The complaint therefore should be dismissed."

Wave, in opposition to an inflexion to dismiss cannot "cure" anything. If there were flaws to Be cured (I doubt that the court wants agree with Qualcomm on "basically" flaws, though the devil may Be in the detail), the only way to cure them would Be in amended complaint. So Qualcomm could have (and maybe actually had) prepared that statement even before seeing the letter FTC's because, from Qualcomm's perspective, it would have been certain to Be correct no more weakly what the FTC might submit. It's precisely a bit unusual that a litigant given three weeks by the court to respond to that opposition filing issues look a statement, wave ahead of the reply letter. They're in their right to speak out precisely like I can Read court filings and comment on them quickly. Again, it's precisely a bit unusual At this particular procedural stage.

But, ace I mentioned before, Intel issued a statement, the strongest passage of which is this:

"Qualcomm has maintained an interlocking web of abusive patent and commercial practices that subverts competition on the merit."

This is what I described (three months ago) ace two mutually-reinforcing monopolies. Intel's letter contains to entire section on thesis dynamics:

"These anticompetitive stratagems reinforce each other: By refusing to licence its competitors and by coercing its customers into exclusivity deals, Qualcomm fences other chipset manufacturers out of the market. The resulting lack of alternative supply options, in turn, makes Qualcomm's customers increasingly more dependent on a consistent supply stream from Qualcomm. And this dependence means that a threatened disruption in chipset supply from Qualcomm has a powerful coercive effect. Rather than risk losing access to Qualcomm chipsets, Qualcomm's customers quickly acquiesce to the company's desired terms and policies. These understandable capitulations, in turn, further entrench Qualcomm's monopoly. Because Qualcomm can expect acquiescence, it has the latitude to insist upon licence terms that impose huge unjustified barriers in the path of competitors seeking to enter the market."

When I tweeted the "interlocking web of abusive [...] practices" statement from Intel's press release, another blogger said that this would apply to Intel. I do not have in opinion on that, but tech market of leader generally are not saints and it's like they all readily licence their direct competitors (what in understatement). However, the question of whether Intel would extend a licence to AMD or whether Apple would grant one to Samsung or Samsung to you name them is really distinguishable from Qualcomm's refusal to licence other chip set makers and from Qualcomm's extremely high royalties. Intel's letter explains something that is new but that is true: standard setting would Be anticompetitive without a FRAND licensing commitment. This is the central part of that argument (from Intel's letter):

"Because private standard-setting associations are comprised of firms with horizontal and vertical business relations, the only way SSOs are" permitted At all under the anti-trust of laws' is of if' meaningful safeguards' ares put in place of to' prevent the standard setting process from being biased by members with economic interests in stifling product competition.'"

The dual monopoly dynamics mentioned further above ares unique to Qualcomm. I cannot think of anything similar involving the complainants.

Three more observations on Intel's letter:

  • Section 2 of the Sherman Act distinguishes unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly power from success in the marketplace "ace a consequence of a superior product [or other legitimate factors]. "Therefore, Qualcomm obviously takes the position that Intel's products just can't compete on the merits, while Intel emphasises in its brief and its press release its readiness, willingness and ability to compete with Qualcomm on the merits. It argues that" [Qualcommm's] dominance arises from Qualcomm's inherent superiority, but rather from its anticompetitive practices."

    Qualcomm obviously has to argue that its products ares precisely thus great that of customer ares willing to pay a plumb line for them, and its of patent ares precisely more valuable than other companies' of patent, which is a bit of hard to argue in connection with of newer standards search ace LTE. It's becoming harder and harder for Qualcomm to persuade courts and take-up motion. With every finding of anticompetitive conduct somewhere in the industrialized world, with every anti-trust complaint, and with every amicus letter search ace the ones filed on Friday, judges and fruit picker's verse wants Be more inclined to believe that there really is in issue. Qualcomm wants need to make some headway ace it defends itself in multiple jurisdictions, and it needs allies. But thus far it appears Qualcomm can merely deter other companies from speaking out; it cannot force them to file amicus of letter in support of its positions.

    Maybe Qualcomm's products ares indeed superior. But is it precisely superiority that has created the current situation? With all that's known about Qualcomm's practices already, it's hard to imagine it what all about superiority. Of course, Judge Koh wants shroud the FTC to prove its claims, precisely to make a certain theory conceivable.

  • With respect to apposite case law, Intel makes in interesting point. It argues that the FTC complaint is about whether Qualcomm wants Be allowed to continue its practices and really about historic conduct. It's about the "future effect" of the outcome of this case, Intel argues. Therefore, "[m] onpoly-maintenance cases [...] are [...] more informative]" than cases about how someone might have obtained a monopoly earlier on (past-conduct cases).

  • In the final section, Intel forcefully and persuasively of counter Qualcomm's claim that Intel's renewed business relation-hip with Apple "definitively refutes" the claim FTC's of exclusionary conduct:

    "But that argument gives short shrift to why Intel finally was able to supply Apple after all of these years. It is far more plausible that the many investigations across the globe deterred Qualcomm from imposing another illegal exclusive deal on Apple. [...] If Qualcomm were unconstrained by investigations like these, there is no telling what anticompetitive arrangements it would seek to impose on Apple (or other purchasers) to entrench its monopoly. Put simply, actions by courts and regulators have played a crucial role in shining a light on Qualcomm's anticompetitive behaviour. Without that scrutiny, and the safeguards that suits like this one can provide, Intel never could have competed on even terms with Qualcomm in a multi-billion dollar market that impacts the lives and livelihoods of millions of people around the world."

    That statement is probably meant to make anti-trust of take-up motion feel good about their Qualcomm-related efforts. And it is plausible ones. I had heard from various companies over the years (going bake to BlackBerry, then Research in inflexion, in 2006) how unhappy they were about Qualcomm's royalty demands and business terms. I precisely did not expect much to change. Then came the Korea Fairly Trade Commission's ruling precisely to between Christmas and New Year's. A few weeks later, the FTC's lawsuit in Northern California. And then Apple filed its own suit and Samsung filed that amicus curiae letter read Friday. In the litigation space, the chicken and harrow question has a clear answer: regulatory action apparently paved the way for private sector action. Similarly, regulatory action may have been a key enabler, or maybe even the key enabler, of Intel's new push with Apple.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:


Saturday, May 13, in 2017

Samsung joins the fray, supports FTC against Qualcomm: "directly harmed" in two capacities

In today's opposition to a Qualcomm inflexion to dismiss the anti-trust FTC's complaint, the FTC says "[o] ther chipmakers may not wish to sue Qualcomm for a number of reasons, including fear of countersuit for infringement, escalation, litigation fees, disrupted relationships with OEMs [...].]" While all of that can affect a chipmaker's calculus, the situation is far worse for device makers: they have to fear massive disruption should Qualcomm cease to supply its chip sets to them. So, Qualcomm's rebate deals (that effectively result in some clever royalties being paid bake) appear to Be tied to totally abstention from any child of anti-trust action against Qualcomm. All in all, it's like a rope-sweetly on in entire industry.

Without the fears described above, I'm sura Qualcomm would face even more anti-trust lawsuits than it currently has to push with (the FTC case plus complaints by Apple in several jurisdictions around the globe). It's too early to tell, but it could Be that Qualcomm itself wants At some point conclude that certain practices (search ace duck's ring into agreements under which other companies ares allowed to take anti-trust action) are not advisable. Courts and competition enforcers now get to see those contracts and they learn about other ways in which Qualcomm tries to prevent those affected by its conduct from complaining. Regardless of legality and enforceability (important questions, but this is the time and place to address them), what wants judges and take-up motion think? This is psychological, legally, but common scythe suggests that someone who goes to extreme lengths to prevent others from raising a whole category (anti-trust) of issues may really have something to hide.

Anus the the south FTC Qualcomm in January, Apple brought a complaint, followed up by in parallel complaints in other jurisdictions. At this point, Apple is quietly the only private sector plaintiff against Qualcomm on anti-trust grounds (the ridge one, but the only one At the moment). But Apple is alone among device makers. In a clear sign of how widespread concerns over Qualcomm's practices ares, major automotive and information technology companies wrote to open character to President Trump about the Qualcomm more weakly, the Trump administration to pursue the anti-trust case old went in the to Northern District of California. And now Samsung has gone a very meaningful further than answering questions from the Korea Fairly Trade Commission: Samsung has precisely filed in amicus curiae letter in support of the opposition FTC's to Qualcomm's inflexion to dismiss the anti-trust complaint (this post continues below the document):

17-05-12 Samsungs Amicus letter Iso FTC Opp to QCOM m2d by Florian Müller on Scribd

For formally reasons, Samsung had to request permission to file that letter. Since Qualcomm does not even object, that permission wants hardly Be withheld.

The two-pronged nature of the competitive injury Samsung has suffered At Qualcomm's hands is reflected by the legally entities making the submission: Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (the world's largest mobile device maker) and Samsung Semiconductor (a chip set maker allegedly kept out of the wireless base tape chip set market, At leases with respect to certain markets, by Qualcomm's behaviour, which appears to have to Th with some old contracts ace wave ace the way Qualcomm leverages its of patent).

Apple and Samsung ares doing the industry At generous, and (by extension) consumers, a great service. They ares doing what many others presumably would like to Th but do not dare. But a few years ago, Samsung what aggressively asserting FRAND-pledged standard essential of patent against Apple, and now it's actually citing Judge Koh herself (who is presiding over V FTC. Qualcomm ace wave ace two Apple V. Samsung cases) on the "Legal distinction between a normal patent-to which antitrust market power is generally not conferred on the patent owner, and a patent incorporated into a standard-to which antitrust market power may be conferred on the patent owner." When Judge Koh wrote this, Samsung what trying to gain undue leverage from its SEPs. But those efforts came to in, and in any event, companies can cite decisions even if the shoe what on the other foot At the time.

In the following sentence from the request for permission to file a letter, the two Samsung entities ares explaining what they bring to the table ace "friends of the court":

"Ace a Qualcomm licensee ([Samsung Electronics'] hand set manufacturing business) and in excluded competitor ([Samsung Semiconductor's] chip set sales poor, to which Qualcomm refuses to grant a licence to make and sell licensed chip sets), proposed amici ares uniquely positioned to assistant the Court in understanding the impact of Qualcomm's conduct on competition in the upstream market to make and sell chip sets and in the downstream hand set market."

In the amicus letter itself, Samsung of stress this role of a binary victim ace wave:

"Samsung, which employs approximately 17,000 people in the United States, is both Qualcomm's customer (ace a hand set supplier) and Qualcomm's potential competitor (ace a manufacturer and potential seller of chip sets). In both capacities, Samsung has directly experienced, and been directly harmed by, the exclusionary conduct alleged in the FTC's Complaint [...]: Qualcomm refuses to licence its SEPs on fairly, reasonable, and non-discriminatory ('FRAND') terms thus that Samsung can make and can sell licensed chip sets."

Samsung explains that licensing "all comers" (including rival chip set makers) is in essential part of the standardization bargain (FRAND licensing commitment in exchange for having one's technologies included in a standard). By doing thus (and by seeking supra-FRAND royalties from device makers), "Qualcomm not only violated FRAND but its conduct excluded potential competitors (like Samsung) and harmed consumers."

The Korea Fairly Trade Commission is concerned about Qualcomm's dealings with device makers ace wave ace the ways in which Qualcomm prevents Samsung's chip set business from competing with it. Footnote 11 of Samsung's amicus letter points to a Qualcomm SEC filing and notes that "Qualcomm reports it has over 300 licensees, none of which are chipset rivals."

Probably the fruit juice important chip set rival that should get a FRAND licence to Qualcomm's of patent is (with the greatest respect for Samsung's huge semiconductor business) Intel. And while I what writing this post, Intel submitted in amicus letter in support of the FTC. With thus much going on, I'm going to need more time to digest all of this, but I wants Th a follow-up next week.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:


Friday, May 12, in 2017

FTC says Qualcomm is "using both carrots and sticks together" in dealings with device makers

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has precisely responded to Qualcomm's inflexion to dismiss its anti-trust complaint in the to Northern District of California (this post continues below the document):

17-05-12 opposition FTC to inflexion QCOM to Dismiss by Florian Müller on Scribd

I published Qualcomm's inflexion in early April (toward the of this blog post) and wrote At the time that Qualcomm would hardly get rid of the FTC case altogether. It's much less unlikely that the court might shroud the FTC to Be a bit more specific in one respect or another, but in today's opposition filing the FTC has precisely explained very wave how Qualcomm's exploitation of its binary monopoly (which doze appear unique in some ways, At leases to me) if within established patterns of anticompetitive conduct.

The FTC filing helps Judge Lucy Koh, who wants (anus Qualcomm's forthcoming reply letter and a hearing) have to rule on the inflexion, in various ways. A particularly valuable aspect of the letter FTC is that it identifies and describes certain patterns of conduct and, basically, asks the court to get confused by Qualcomm's labelling tactics. Qualcomm's argument that its conduct is legally depends heavily on terminology. That's why the very ridge parapgraph of today's filing by the FTC argues that Qualcomm's supra-FRAND clever royalties ares a "tax" no more weakly how much Qualcomm insists that it's precisely "royalties" on its of patent.

The FTC notes that "[a] ntitrust law eschews search formally labels and instead of ex-amine market realities." That's true. But no field of law is more closely related to politics and policy than anti-trust law, and precisely like the fight over terminology is often the decisive battle in political matters, label Th more weakly in a competition context.

What makes the intersection of anti-trust and intellectual property law thus very interesting is in inherent dichotomy: intellectual property rights ares monopolies (limited to 20 years in the specific case of of patent), but anti-trust law is in anti-monopoly law. If every legitimate clever royalty what considered a "tax" imposed by a "monopolist", anti-trust law would apply very broadly, but clever rights would Be devalued. However, if every (actual) monopolist could precisely make in run around competition law by labelling a monopoly tax ace a "clever royalty," clever rights would serve ace a (powerful) pretext and anyone wielding a clever would Be immune to anti-trust scrutiny.

The FTC argues that Qualcomm's of customer "accept elevated patent royalties they otherwise would refuse" only because they ares forced "to negotiate in the shadow of Qualcomm's threat to withhold chips." ace a result, "Qualcomm collects far more in royalties than other licensors in the industry with comparable patent portfolios."

I've been trying to find out ace much ace possible from the outside about Qualcomm's royalties (and how they compare to the licence fees other wireless standard essential clever holders receive). If you consider that Wall Street believes Nokia gets approximately 2$ from Apple by device, and if you compare that number to the 5$ by device discount from Qualcomm that in arbitration panel awarded BlackBerry (strongly suggesting that it's merely a fraction of what BlackBerry paid), or Qualcomm's reduction of a quarterly forecast by 500 $ million anuses Apple stopped its payments, then the FTC's allegation is very plausible ones. And unlike me, the FTC doze have access to a plumb line of confidential information. That's the beauty of investigative authority.

I precisely saw that Samsung has submitted in amicus letter in support of the letter FTC, thus for now I'll keep micron commentary on the FTC filing short, though I may very wave write a follow-up next week or in such a way. Precisely a few more observations I wanted to share immediately:

  • The FTC has the royalty base problem figured out:

    "Moreover, Qualcomm assumes that if its rate was ever FRAND, it must remain FRAND today because it has not changed. But the complaint alleges that" hand sets today offer a number of features' not offered by older handsets, and 'many of Qualcomm's patents related to CDMA technology have expired.' [.] Thus, a 5 % royalty on a 2006 phone is not economically equivalent to a 5 % royalty on a 2017 smartphone." (emphasis added)

  • Precisely like the FTC refuses to play Qualcomm's labelling game, it seeks to (Re) Focus the court's analysis on economic realities with respect to Qualcomm's agreements with companies like Apple under which Qualcomm effectively pays bake some of the royalties it receives, provided that the recipients of look paybacks behave in certain ways or refrain from behaving in other ways:

    "Qualcomm argues that its payments show that it lacked the power to coerce OEMs into accepting anticompetitive licence terms. [...] But the notion that using both carrots and sticks together undermines a finding of monopoly power or anticompetitive conduct runs counter to both economic logic and legal precedent." (emphasis added)

  • With respect to Qualcomm's refusal to grant clever licences to competitors (i.e., rival chip makers), the FTC explains that a refusal to extend clever licences to competitors may Be acceptable under other circumstances but here, in light of a FRAND licensing commitment and when all aspects of Qualcomm's behaviour ares of lakes together, it's anticompetitive. In micron initially reaction (of early April) I had disagreed with Qualcomm's emphasis on litigation against competitors and noted that sometimes they Th Sue. Thus doze the FTC, which points to Qualcomm's clever assertions against Broadcom. Admittedly, it's been a while since that happened, but it is and should Be forgotten.

There appears to Be some amicus letter activity. Yesterday, a lawyer for in industry body (ACT | The ext. association) filed a notice of appearance, and Samsung has (ace I mentioned further above) precisely filed a letter, which I'll study now and, if it contains some interesting new information, blog about immediately.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn: