F.T.C. v. QUALCOMM INC.

No. 19-16122.

969 F.3d 974 (2020)

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, A Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellant, Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd.; Samsung Semiconductor Inc.; Intel Corporation; Ericsson, Inc.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; MediaTek Inc.; Apple Inc., Intervenors, Nokia Technologies Oy; Interdigital, Inc.; Lenovo (United States), Inc.; Motorola Mobility LLC, Intervenors.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Filed August 11, 2020.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Thomas C. Goldstein (argued), Kevin K. Russell , and Eric F. Citron , Goldstein & Russell P.C., Bethesda, Maryland; Gary A. Bornstein , Antony L. Ryan , Yonatan Even , and M. Brent Byars , Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, New York; Robert A. Van Nest , Eugene M. Paige , Cody S. Harris , and Justina Sessions , Keker Van Nest & Peters LLP, San Francisco, California; Willard K. Tom , Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Washington, D.C.; Geoffrey T. Holtz , Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, San Francisco, California; Richard S. Taffet , Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, New York, New York; Michael W. McConnell , Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Palo Alto, California; for Defendant-Appellant.

Brian H. Fletcher (argued), Special Counsel; Michele Arington , Assistant General Counsel; Heather Hippsley , Deputy General Counsel; Ian R. Conner , Deputy Director; Daniel Francis , Associate Director; Jennifer Milici , Chief Trial Counsel; Alexander Ansaldo , Joseph Baker , Wesley Carson , Geoffrey Green , Rajesh James , Kenneth Merber , and Mark Woodward , Attorneys, Bureau of Competition; Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D.C.; for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Michael F. Murray (argued), Deputy Assistant Attorney General; William J. Rinner , Chief of Staff and Senior Counsel; Daniel E. Haar , Acting Chief, Competition Policy and Advocacy Section; Jennifer Dixton , Patrick M. Kuhlmann , and Jeffrey D. Negrette , Attorneys; Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Amicus Curiae United States.

Jonathan S. Massey , Matthew M. Collette , and Kathryn Robinette , Massey & Gail LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Ericsson, Inc.

Amanda Tessar , Perkins Coie LLP, Denver, Colorado; Sarah E. Fowler , Perkins Coie LLP, Palo Alto, California; for Amicus Curiae Act | The App Association.

Henry C. Su , Ankur Kapoor and David Golden , Constantine Cannon LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae High Tech Inventors Alliance.

Steven C. Holtzman and Gabriel R. Schlabach , Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, San Francisco, California, for Amicus Curiae MediaTek Inc.

John J. Vecchione , Michael Pepson , and Jessica Thompson , Cause of Action Institute, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Cause of Action Institute.

Garrard R. Beeney and Akash M. Toprani , Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, New York, for Amicus Curiae Dolby Laboratories, Inc.

Erik S. Jaffe , Schaerr Jaffe LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae Antitrust and Patent Law Professors, Economists, and Scholars.

Matthew J. Dowd , Dowd Scheffel PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae The Honorable Paul R. Michel (Ret.).

Andrew G. Isztwan , Interdigital Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, for Amicus Curiae Interdigital Inc.

Robert P. Taylor , RPT Legal Strategies PC, San Francisco, California, for Amicus Curiae Alliance of U.S. Startups & Inventors for Jobs (USIJ).

Jarod M. Bona , Aaron R. Gott , Luis Blanquez , and Luke Hasskamp , Bona Law PC, La Jolla, California; Alexander Shear , Bona Law PC, New York, New York; for Amici Curiae International Center for Law & Economics and Scholars of Law and Economics.

Ryan W. Koppelman , Alston & Bird LLP, Palo Alto, California, for Amicus Curiae Nokia Technologies Oy.

David W. Kesselman , Amy T. Brantly , and Monica M. Castillo Van Panhuys , Kesselman Brantly Stockinger , Manhattan Beach, California, for Amicus Curiae Professor Jorge L. Contreras.

Sandeep Vaheesan , Open Markets Institute, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Open Markets Institute.

Thomas G. Hungar and Nick Harper , Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, D.C.; Joshua Landau , Computer & Communications Industry Association, Washington, D.C.; for Amicus Curiae Computer and Communications Industry Association.

Ian Simmons , Benjamin J. Henricks , Brian P. Quinn , and Scott Schaeffer , O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, D.C., Michael D. Hausfeld and Scott Martin , Hausfeld LLP, New York, New York; for Amici Curiae Law and Economics Scholars.

Charles Duan , R Street Institute, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae R Street Institute.

Gregory P. Stone , Benjamin J. Horwich , Justin P. Raphael , and Stephanie G. Herrera , Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, San Francisco, California; Donald B. Verrilli Jr. , Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Washington, D.C.; for Amicus Curiae Intel Corporation.

Andrew J. Pincus , Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae Association of Global Automakers and Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

John ("Jay") Jurata Jr. , Randall C. Smith , Thomas King-Sun Fu , and Emily Luken , Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae Continental Automotive Systems Inc., and Denso Corporation.

Jean-Claude André and David R. Carpenter , Sidley Austin LLP, Los Angeles, California; Raymond A. Atkins and Joseph V. Coniglio , Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, D.C.; for Amicus Curiae Timothy J. Muris.

Randy M. Stutz , American Antitrust Institute, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae American Antitrust Institute and Public Knowledge.

David H. Herrington , and Alexandra K. Theobald , Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, New York, New York; Daniel P. Culley and Jessica A. Hollis , Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, Washington, D.C.; for Amicus Curiae Fair Standards Alliance.

Before: Johnnie B. Rawlinson and Consuelo M. Callahan, Circuit Judges, and Stephen J. Murphy, III, District Judge.


OPINION

This case asks us to draw the line between anticompetitive behavior, which is illegal under federal antitrust law, and hypercompetitive behavior, which is not. The Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") contends that Qualcomm Incorporated ("Qualcomm") violated the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §&...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases