ITC Might Block Imports of Intel-Supplied iPhones After All
The full commission has asked the parties to brief an ALJ's determination that even a carefully tailored exclusion order would hand Qualcomm a monopoly on 5G modem chips.
December 13, 2018 at 08:13 PM
3 minute read
The International Trade Commission has put back in play a possible exclusionary order against Intel-powered iPhones.
The ITC announced Wednesday it will review an administrative law judge's recommendation last September that Apple's infringement of a Qualcomm smartphone chip patent be excused. ALJ Thomas Pender had found that the remedy of excluding some Apple iPhones from importation would force Intel out of the market and hand Qualcomm a monopoly on 5G modem chips, contrary to the public interest.
Wednesday's order signaled that the full commission might consider a limited exclusion order recommended by ITC staff that would allow Intel to continue supplying 5G technology to Apple, even if it infringes Qualcomm's 9,535,490 patent, but not the older 4G/LTE chips that infringe.
Pender rejected that approach in his initial determination last September, saying it was “wishful thinking” that such a carve-out would persuade Intel to remain in the 5G chip market. Qualcomm called Pender's order “unprecedented” and has said Intel's threat to quit the market isn't credible.
The full commission asked the parties to brief whether a carve-out would be “practicable, feasible, and would effectively balance enforcement of Qualcomm's '490 patent rights against the interest of avoiding Intel's exit from the relevant market for premium baseband chipsets.”
The commission also asked the parties “whether national security concerns may be taken into consideration for the purpose of evaluating the public interest” and, if so, whether a limited exclusion order would implicate them.
The announcement also contained some good news for Apple. The commission said it would also review whether Pender had properly construed Qualcomm's patent claim—raising the possibility it may not be infringed—and whether the claim might be obvious over prior art. If Qualcomm were to lose on either of those grounds, it would moot the public interest issue.
Qualcomm is represented before the ITC by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan; Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg; and Cravath, Swaine & Moore. Apple is represented by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr and Fish & Richardson.
The commission indicated it will issue a decision by Feb. 19. It would then be subject to a 60-day period of review by the U.S. Trade Representative.
The Federal Trade Commission and Qualcomm are scheduled for a bench trial before U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California in January over whether Qualcomm has engaged in anti-competitive conduct in the 3G and 4G markets. Qualcomm is also facing trials later this year in a follow-on $5 billion antitrust class action and Apple's antitrust lawsuit.
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
© 2025 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 AllMeta agrees to pay $25 million to settle lawsuit from Trump after Jan. 6 suspension
4 minute readHow We Won It: Latham Secures Back-to-Back ITC Patent Wins for California Companies
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1People in the News—Jan. 30, 2025—Rubin Glickman, Goldberg Segalla
- 2Georgia Republicans Push to Limit Lawsuits. But Would That Keep Insurance Rates From Rising?
- 3Trending Issues in Florida Construction Law That Attorneys Need to Be Aware Of
- 4The Importance of Judicial Elections
- 5Ephemeral Messaging Going Into 2025:The Messages May Vanish But Not The Preservation Obligations
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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