A federal judge has tossed out three consumer antitrust class actions against Qualcomm Inc., holding that the alleged injuries to consumers were too remote to be traced to alleged anti-competitive conduct by Qualcomm.
The suits by secondary purchasers of mobile phones accused Qualcomm, the world’s largest maker of mobile phone chips, of using its monopoly control of the chip patents to charge allegedly anticompetitive fees to the cellphone industry, which contributed to higher costs to consumers.
U.S. District Judge William Q. Hayes of the Southern District of California in San Diego held on March 3 that the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries “are too remote to support standing under the Cartwright Act” because injuries “are separated by at least three intermediaries to the antitrust violation.” He concluded that any injuries were not a direct result of Qualcomm’s alleged unlawful conduct.
Qualcomm attorneys Christopher Beal of the San Diego office of DLA Piper and Peter Barbur of New York-based Cravath, Swaine & Moore could not be reached for comment.
“The court’s decision was thoughtful and well-reasoned, and while we disagree with the result, we respect decision,” said Scott Kamber of the New York office of KamberEdelson, representing one of the plaintiff groups in Meyer v. Qualcomm Inc., No. C08-655; Valikhani v. Qualcomm, No. 08-786; and Lorenzo v. Qualcomm, No. 08-2124 (S.D. Calif.).
But the ruling against secondary purchasers does not get Qualcomm out of antitrust trouble. A separate direct purchaser suit remains in the same court, brought by Broadcom Corp.
Separate allegations were brought against Qualcomm in the European Union alleging that Qualcomm abused its dominant position in licensing of wireless telecom technology and the sale of chipsets.
The direct purchaser disputes center on the claim that Qualcomm violated antitrust law in commitments to license its patented chips at competitive prices under rules used for chips selected as industry-standard devices.
