FTC v. Qualcomm

Standard-essential patents complicate antitrust: inventors must be rewarded, but abusing standard-setting power can harm competition.

The FTC argued Qualcomm's licensing royalties were excessive and that tying chip supply to patent agreements locked out rivals like Intel.

Qualcomm countered that its model funded R&D that advanced mobile standards worldwide.

After a dramatic win at trial, Qualcomm prevailed on appeal—a stark contrast to EU abuse-of-dominance enforcement in a parallel chip case.

US courts remain skeptical of 'duty to deal' claims against innovative firms.

Patent licensing and antitrust intersect in every smartphone on the market.

Different outcomes in US vs EU shape where companies face greatest regulatory risk.

Qualcomm monopolized modem chip markets.

Refusal to deal and exclusivity rebates were exclusionary.

Licensing terms were supra-competitive and maintained monopoly power.

Qualcomm said it never stopped selling chips to willing licensees.

It argued FRAND commitments did not create antitrust duties to license rivals.

Qualcomm maintained Apple chose it for superior technology, not illegal rebates alone.

Phone prices reflect patent royalty stacks hidden inside device costs.

US consumers saw no forced restructuring of Qualcomm's business model from this case.

Global phone makers still navigate different patent rules by region.