Qualcomm baseband chipsets (EU)

Baseband chips are essential modems inside smartphones. Qualcomm held strong share in 3G-era chipsets.

Icera offered alternative designs; regulators claimed Qualcomm targeted it with artificially low prices to major OEMs.

Predatory pricing cases require proving below-cost sales and ability to recoup losses later—a high bar the Commission thought it met.

Appeals focused on whether Qualcomm received a fair chance to review evidence, leading to annulment without clearing all conduct questions.

Chip competition affects device costs and innovation in mobile networks.

Contrasts with US Qualcomm outcome—jurisdiction matters enormously.

Procedural rigor can defeat substantive enforcement even in high-profile cases.

Qualcomm dominated UMTS baseband chipsets.

Below-cost sales to Huawei and ZTE excluded Icera anti-competitively.

Qualcomm could recoup losses after eliminating the rival.

Qualcomm denied selling below cost and said competition remained vigorous.

It argued Icera failed for business reasons unrelated to pricing.

Qualcomm challenged both EU chip and separate EU patent royalty cases.

Modem chip rivalry influences phone features and prices over time.

EU and US enforcers can reach opposite conclusions on the same company.

Annulment does not automatically legalize contested pricing—watch for refiling.