Qualcomm Asks 9th Circuit to Stay Koh Injunction
The wireless giant adds Goldstein & Russell to its team while arguing that Koh wrongly found it had an antitrust duty to deal with its rivals. Meanwhile, the FTC has consented to Qualcomm's request to expedite briefing on the merits.
July 09, 2019 at 04:23 PM
4 minute read
Qualcomm is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to stay U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh's antitrust injunction. The order, issued in May following a bench trial, would force Qualcomm to license rival chip suppliers on FRAND terms and renegotiate licenses with smartphone makers free from threats to disrupt their supply of modem chips.
Qualcomm has added Supreme Court advocate Thomas Goldstein of Goldstein & Russell to its all-star team, suggesting it anticipates the Ninth Circuit won't be the last stop for Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm.
If not stayed pending appeal, Koh's order will require “the nation's leading innovator of cellular technology to fundamentally change the way it has done business for decades—a period in which the industry has flourished, competition has increased, prices have declined, and innovation has accelerated,” states the motion, which is signed by Goldstein.
Though seeking an immediate stay, Qualcomm is also asking the Ninth Circuit to expedite its appeal on the merits, with briefing to be completed by October. The FTC is not opposing the request, which could mean a decision as early as next year.
Qualcomm's team at the Ninth Circuit also includes Cravath, Swaine & Moore; Keker, Van Nest & Peters; and Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.
Senior Judges Mary Schroeder and William Canby and Judge Morgan Christen are assigned to the Ninth Circuit motions panel for July.
Koh summarily denied a similar stay motion from Qualcomm last week. Her injunction also forbids Qualcomm from fashioning actual or de facto exclusive dealing agreements with companies such as Apple Inc., LG Electronics Inc. and Samsung Electronics Inc., and precludes Qualcomm from interfering with such companies' ability to communicate with government regulators. Qualcomm is not seeking an immediate stay of those provisions before the Ninth Circuit, though it says it will challenge them later in the appeal.
Instead, it argues that the first two prongs of Koh's order are based on legal errors and already causing irreparable harm to its relationships with the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) who produce smartphones and other mobile devices. “One licensee now relies on the order to justify a preexisting breach of its current license agreement,” Qualcomm states in its motion. “At least one OEM has stated that Qualcomm must license a chip rival, in order to permit the OEM to buy the rival's chips with Qualcomm's patents exhausted, while seriously considering ceasing paying royalties to Qualcomm under its current agreement.”
The company asserts that the Justice Department's Antitrust Division chief, Makan Delrahim, has described the theory Koh relied on as a “misuse of the antitrust laws,” and that one of the five FTC commissioners has called her order “bad law and bad policy.”
In particular, Qualcomm and Goldstein focus on Koh's finding that Qualcomm had an antitrust duty to deal with rival chip manufacturers. “The Supreme Court has recognized the bedrock principle that a business—including a monopolist—is generally entitled to determine with whom it will do business and in what manner,” Goldstein writes. He also challenges Koh's determination that Qualcomm effectively imposes a “surcharge” on rivals' chips.
The company also argues that the injunction cuts against the public interest. “The Government has recognized that Qualcomm's technological leadership is vital to the 'national security of the United States,' which could be harmed as a result of a change to Qualcomm's business model,” Goldstein writes.
Before Koh, the Federal Trade Commission turned the public interest argument back on Qualcomm, arguing a stay would let it unfairly entrench its monopoly power during the critical rollout of 5G wireless technology over the next couple of years.
Qualcomm's “argument that anything that diminishes its corporate profits would necessarily threaten national security is absurdly overbroad and contrary to Congress's determination, in enacting the Sherman Act, that competition furthers the public interest,” the FTC had argued.
The agency said that Qualcomm's claims of irreparable harm “cannot be reconciled with its repeated representations during this litigation that chip leverage has no material impact on Qualcomm's licensing revenues.”
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 AllMusic Streaming App Platform Musi Sues Apple on Breach-of-Contract Claims
Epic Games Sues Google, Samsung for Alleged Federal and State Antitrust Violations
Apple Slapped With Consumer Class Action Over Warranty Charges for Inactive Devices
Harvard College and Ward, Smith & Hill File Patent Infringement Suit Against Samsung
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 5Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
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