With Infringement Complaints, Qualcomm GC Says It's Time for 'Affirmative Action' Against Apple
In the latest in the face-off between Apple Inc. and Qualcomm Inc., the latter has filed two patent infringement complaints related to six of…
July 11, 2017 at 08:25 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
In the latest in the face-off between Apple Inc. and Qualcomm Inc., the latter has filed two patent infringement complaints related to six of chipmaker Qualcomm's patents covering key technologies that enable certain features in the iPhone.
Apple has gone after Qualcomm in court, instigated regulatory actions and interfered with relationships with contract manufacturers, said Don Rosenberg, executive vice president, general counsel and corporate secretary at Qualcomm, in an interview with Corporate Counsel. “Apple has basically started a worldwide challenge with us,” he said. “So why now? Because we are not only defending ourselves, but we have decided to take some affirmative action in response to this.”
Qualcomm filed one complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission, alleging that Apple has engaged in unlawful importation and sale of iPhones that infringe on six patents in question. The company is requesting that the federal agency ultimately bar importation and halt further sales of infringing products in the United States, according to the July 7 complaint.
In a parallel action, the telecommunications giant filed a patent infringement complaint against Apple in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. “While Apple built the most successful consumer products in history by relying significantly on technologies pioneered by Qualcomm, Apple refuses to pay for those technologies,” the complaint stated. “Rather than pay Qualcomm for the technology Apple uses, Apple has taken extraordinary measures to avoid paying Qualcomm for the fair value of Qualcomm's patents.”
Such measures have included a Jan. 20 lawsuit Apple brought against Qualcomm, alleging “excessive royalties” and withholding of payments. Just days later, Apple also filed suit in China, premised on similar claims.
The six patents at issue are just a small part of Qualcomm's robust patent portfolio, which includes patents on fundamental technology that ensures phones function properly. While Qualcomm's patents enable and enhance certain iPhone features, Rosenberg said “we are in the background,” meaning many may not know what the company has contributed. “Apple has tried to capitalize on that by creating this false narrative that they're the innovator,” Rosenberg explained.
In response to request for comment, Apple referenced a statement issued on June 20. “Qualcomm's illegal business practices are harming Apple and the entire industry,” the statement said. “They supply us with a single connectivity component, but for years have been demanding a percentage of the total cost of our products—effectively taxing Apple's innovation. We believe deeply in the value of intellectual property but we shouldn't have to pay them for technology breakthroughs they have nothing to do with.”
In an earnings call earlier this year, Apple CEO Tim Cook likened Qualcomm's business practices to “buying a sofa” from someone who is charging “a different price based on the house it's going into.”
Rosenberg countered that this is “just a lot of nonsense” Apple has used as a distraction and added that it's a well-established industry practice to charge a percentage of an item's selling price in exchange for use of intellectual property. “[It's] simply an easy and proportionate way to say we will take a small percentage of the selling price of the device and that will pay for the intellectual property use,” he said. “It's a combination of both the accepted methodology and the fact that our intellectual property is all over the [iPhone] that justifies the process we use.”
In addition to the ongoing legal battle with Apple, Qualcomm has also been sued by the Federal Trade Commission for using anti-competitive tactics to maintain its monopoly in the supply of a key device used in cellphones. This followed a more than $800 million fine by the Korea Fair Trade Commission and a nearly $1 billion fine for violating China's anti-monopoly law.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllElaine Darr Brings Transformation and Value to DHL's Business
How Marsh McLennan's Small But Mighty Legal Innovation Team Builds Solutions That Bring Joy
Democratic State AGs Revel in Role as Last Line of Defense Against Trump Agenda
7 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250