Qualcomm Opposes CCIA Filing Seeking Licensing Obligations
As a standard essential patent holder, Qualcomm needs to fulfill its obligation “to license to everyone from downstream clients to competitors,” the Computer & Communications Industry Association and the ACT|The App Association argued Tuesday, backing the FTC in the agency's…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
anticompetitive complaint. Qualcomm argued in its own filing (in Pacer) against the relevance and timing of CCIA and ACT’s filing. “The law is clear that Qualcomm cannot interpret that obligation to include hidden, unstated limitations, or to refuse to license to a willing licensee,” CCIA CEO Ed Black said. “Qualcomm’s unwillingness to license competitors threatens wireless competition and could harm American competitiveness in 5G technology.” Qualcomm argued against the “belated filing” one week before Qualcomm’s opposition to the FTC's motion for partial summary judgment was due. "In addition to the timing problem, and the irrelevance of ACT and CCIA’s views, both organizations are affiliated with firms that are actively litigating against Qualcomm in other forums,” Qualcomm said. Apple is an ACT sponsor, and Intel and Nvidia are CCIA members, the filing said. “Moreover, counsel for ACT and CCIA has previously appeared in this case as counsel for Broadcom, which recently tried to acquire Qualcomm in a hostile transaction.”