Read on Twitter
Qualcomm opinion from CA9 just released, 3-0 reversing in favor of Qualcomm: “Anticompetitive behavior is illegal under federal antitrust law. Hypercompetitive behavior is not.” 1/7
“As none of the required elements for the Aspen Skiing exception are present, let alone all of them, the district court erred in holding Qualcomm is under an antitrust city to license rival chip manufacturers.” 2/7
And “Even if the district court is correct that Qualcomm is contractually obligated via its SSO commitments to license to rivals . . . FTC still does not satisfactorily explain how Qualcomm’s alleged breach of this contractual commitment itself impairs” rival’s opportunities. 3/7
Citing @ProfWrightGMU, Court reasons “‘intentional deception’ exception to the general rule that breaches of SSO commitments do not give rise to antitrust liability does not apply to this case.” And noting “persuasive policy arguments of several academics” including Wright. 4/7
Next, “anticompetitive surcharge theory fails to state a cogent theory of anticompetitive harm” because “it incorrectly conflates antitrust liability and patent law liability” 5/7
“[N]either the Sherman Act not any other law prohibits companies like Qualcomm from (1) licensing their SEPs independently from chip sales and collecting royalties” or “(2) limiting their chip customer base to licensed OEMs.” 6/7
Finally, “Qualcomm’s 2011 and 203 agreements with Apple have not had the actual or practical effect of substantially foreclosing competition . . . .” 7/7
