FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Jennifer Milici, D.C. Bar No. 987096

J. Alexander Ansaldo, Va. Bar No. 75870

Joseph R. Baker, D.C. Bar No. 490802

Wesley G. Carson, D.C. Bar No. 1009899

Kent Cox, Illinois Bar No. 6188944

Elizabeth A. Gillen, Cal. Bar No. 260667

Geoffrey M. Green, D.C. Bar No. 428392

Nathaniel M. Hopkin, N.Y. Bar No. 5191598

Mika Ikeda, D.C. Bar. No. 983431

Rajesh S. James, N.Y. Bar No. 4209367

Philip J. Kehl, D.C. Bar No. 1010284

Daniel Matheson, D.C. Bar No. 502490

Kenneth H. Merber, D.C. Bar No. 985703

Aaron Ross, D.C. Bar No. 1026902

Connor Shively, Wash. Bar No. 44043

Mark J. Woodward, D.C. Bar No. 479537

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20580

(202) 326-2912; (202) 326-3496 (fax)

jmilici@ftc.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, a Delaware 

corporation,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK-NMC

PLAINTIFF FEDERAL TRADE 

COMMISSION’S PRETRIAL 

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

REDACTED VERSION OF 

DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE 

SEALED 

Courtroom: 8, 4th Floor 

Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 1 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

i

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CONTENTS

PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT.............................................................................................. 1

1 Background ................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Qualcomm background .................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Cellular networks.............................................................................................................................. 2

1.3 Cellular handsets .............................................................................................................................. 3

1.4 Modem chips.................................................................................................................................... 4

1.5 Standard-setting organizations ......................................................................................................... 5

1.6 Standard essential patents and FRAND commitments..................................................................... 6

1.7 Qualcomm FRAND commitments................................................................................................... 7

2 Relevant Markets.......................................................................................................................................... 8

2.1 CDMA modem chips........................................................................................................................ 8

2.2 Premium LTE modem chips........................................................................................................... 11

2.3 Geographic market ......................................................................................................................... 15

3 Market and Monopoly Power .................................................................................................................... 15

3.1 Qualcomm market and monopoly power in CDMA modem chips ................................................ 15

3.2 Qualcomm market and monopoly power in Premium LTE modem chips ..................................... 17

4 Qualcomm’s No License-No Chips Policy ................................................................................................ 20

4.1 Qualcomm will not sell modem chips unless the purchaser signs a separate license 

agreement ....................................................................................................................................... 20

4.2 Qualcomm routinely invokes its no license-no chips policy in licensing negotiations with 

OEMs ............................................................................................................................................. 21

4.3 OEMs are vulnerable to coercion through Qualcomm’s no license-no chips policy...................... 22

4.4 Qualcomm’s no license-no chips policy insulates it from the ordinary constraints of 

FRAND commitments, including the threat of litigation ............................................................... 25

4.5 Qualcomm’s no license-no chips policy results in elevated royalties ............................................ 27

......................................................................................................... 29

.......................... 29

................................................................................................ 30

....................................................................................... 30

................................................................. 31

6 Qualcomm’s Refusal to License Rival Modem Chip Suppliers .............................................................. 31

6.1 Qualcomm will not license rivals................................................................................................... 31

6.2 Modem-chip level licensing (or multi-level licensing) is practicable............................................. 34

6.3 Intended effect................................................................................................................................ 34

7 Qualcomm’s Agreements with Apple........................................................................................................ 35

7.1 Marketing Incentive Agreement (2007) ......................................................................................... 35

7.2 Transition Agreements (2011 and 2013) ........................................................................................ 37

7.3 The 2011 and 2013 agreements prevented Apple from working with other modem chip 

suppliers.......................................................................................................................................... 43

8 Harm to Competition.................................................................................................................................. 46

8.1 Generally ........................................................................................................................................ 46

8.2 Qualcomm’s royalties are unreasonably high................................................................................. 46

8.3 Qualcomm’s no license-no chips policy has raised the cost to OEMs of using modem chips 

supplied by Qualcomm’s competitors............................................................................................ 47

8.4 By imposing a surcharge that OEMs pay regardless of whether OEMs use Qualcomm 

chips or rivals’ chips, Qualcomm’s no license-no chips policy weakens rivals............................. 48

8.5 Harm to consumers......................................................................................................................... 49

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 2 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

ii

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8.6 Qualcomm’s agreements with Apple foreclosed an important and substantial portion of the 

premium LTE modem chip market................................................................................................. 50

8.7 Refusal to license rivals.................................................................................................................. 52

8.8 The market reflects the tendency of Qualcomm’s conduct to exclude competition ....................... 53

9 Remedy ........................................................................................................................................................ 54

9.1 Qualcomm’s conduct is ongoing, and absent injunctive relief the resulting competitive 

harm is likely to continue and recur ............................................................................................... 54

9.2 The forms of injunctive relief sought by the FTC are practicable and consistent with 

normal industry practice ................................................................................................................. 56

PRETRIAL PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ................................................................................... 57

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 3 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission hereby submits its pretrial proposed findings 

of fact and conclusions of law.

PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT

1 Background

1.1 Qualcomm background

1. QUALCOMM Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) is headquartered in San 

Diego, California.

2. Since at least 1989, Qualcomm has been, and is now, a corporation. 

3. Since at least 1989, Qualcomm has been, and is now, engaged in 

interstate and international commerce.

4. Qualcomm’s operating segment relating to its chip and software business 

is called Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (“QCT”). 

5. Qualcomm’s operating segment relating to the licensing of its patents is 

called Qualcomm Technology Licensing (“QTL”). 

6. In 2012, Qualcomm created Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. (“QTI”), a 

wholly owned subsidiary of Qualcomm. QTI operates substantially all of Qualcomm’s 

products and services businesses, including QCT, as well as substantially all of 

Qualcomm’s engineering, research and development functions. Qualcomm continues to 

operate QTL.

7. Qualcomm CDMA Technologies Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd. (“QCTAP”), a 

Singapore company, is a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Qualcomm.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 4 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1.2 Cellular networks

8. Cellular communications depend on widely distributed networks 

implementing standardized protocols. 

9. Since the introduction of commercial cellular handsets, there have been 

four “generations” of cellular communication standards. 

10. First-generation (“1G”) standards, introduced in the 1980s, support 

analog transmission of voice calls.

11. Second-generation (“2G”) standards, first deployed in the early 1990s, 

support digital transmission of voice calls. 

12. The leading 2G standards families are the Global System for Mobile 

communications (“GSM”) and cdmaOne (“2G-CDMA,” also sometimes called 

“TIA/EIA/IS-95” or “IS-95”). 

13. GSM uses time division multiple access (“TDMA”) technology.

14. cdmaOne uses code division multiple access (“CDMA”) technology.

15. Third-generation (“3G”) standards, first deployed in the late 1990s and 

early 2000s, support higher data-transmission speeds.

16. The leading 3G standards families are the Universal Mobile 

Telecommunications System (“UMTS,” also commonly referred to as “WCDMA”) and 

CDMA2000 (“3G-CDMA”).

17. Wireless carriers that deployed 2G GSM networks transitioned to 3G 

UMTS networks.

18. Wireless carriers that deployed 2G-CDMA networks transitioned to 3GCDMA networks.

19. Fourth-generation (“4G”) standards were first deployed in late 2009 and 

the early 2010s.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 5 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

20. 4G standards support substantially higher data-transmission speeds than 

3G standards.

21. The leading 4G standard today is Long-Term Evolution (“LTE”).

22. LTE uses orthogonal frequency division multiple access (“OFDMA”) 

technology for downlink transmissions and single-carrier frequency division multiple 

access (“SC-FDMA”) technology for uplink transmissions.

23. In the United States, AT&T and T-Mobile have operated UMTS 

(WCDMA) networks. Verizon and Sprint have operated CDMA2000 networks.

24. All four major U.S. carriers, including Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, and 

Sprint, have deployed LTE as their 4G standard (which also encompasses the LTE 

Advanced, or “LTE-A” standard). 

25. For carriers that have deployed LTE networks, 3G standards remain 

important for purposes of backward compatibility.

1.3 Cellular handsets

26. Consumer products that communicate with cellular networks (“cellular 

handsets”) include feature phones; smartphones; and cellular-enabled tablets.

27. While feature phones offer only voice and text-messaging capability, 

smartphones, which emerged in the late 2000s, offer many other features, including 

cameras, high-resolution touch-screen displays, powerful applications and graphics 

processors, and enhanced memory and storage.

28. Among cellular standards, LTE functionality is particularly important for 

modern smartphones, as consumers increasingly use smartphones to transmit large 

volumes of data. Cellular data traffic has grown exponentially in recent years, while the 

volume of cellular voice traffic has remained nearly flat.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 6 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29. Cellular handsets are designed, marketed, and sold by original equipment 

manufacturers (“OEMs”) such as Apple, Samsung, Huawei, Apple, Lenovo/Motorola 

Mobility, and LG.

30. Over time, competition among OEMs has developed across several 

handset tiers, including premium, high, mid, and low tiers. 

31. Premium-tier handsets have become increasingly important for OEMs. 

Premium handsets tend to have higher prices than lower-tier handsets and are important 

for branding.

1.4 Modem chips

32. Modem chips are integrated circuits (sometimes referred to as “chips,” 

“chipsets,” “modems,” “basebands,” or “baseband processors”) within cellular handsets.

33. An integrated circuit that combines a modem chip together with an 

applications processor on a single substrate is commonly referred to as an integrated 

“System on a Chip” (“SoC”). The term “thin modem” is commonly used to refer to a 

stand-alone modem chip that is not combined on a single substrate with an applications 

processor.

34. To communicate with a carrier’s network, a cellular handset must contain 

a modem chip that complies with cellular communications standards that the network 

supports. 

35. OEMs and their customers often require that cellular handsets and the 

modem chips they contain comply with multiple standards.

36. Cellular handsets that comply with a later-generation standards must 

generally be “backward compatible” with prior generations of standards in order to 

achieve full functionality and/or geographic coverage.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 7 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

37. To enter the supply of modem chips, a supplier must make substantial 

initial R&D investments, and it must continuously make further significant R&D 

investments in the development of new products to maintain its position.

38. As cellular technology and standards have evolved, communication 

speeds have increased, and other technological features (such as power usage and chip 

size) have improved.

39. Because of the rapid evolution of cellular technology, modem chip 

suppliers generally need to introduce a new product at regular and frequent intervals to 

remain competitive.

40. Modem development takes two to three years, and a modem chip supplier 

must therefore have multiple modems under development at a time. Modem chip 

suppliers maintain long-term product roadmaps.

41. When a modem chip supplier implements a new technology, there is an 

extended process of testing and fixing bugs before the modem chip achieves a stable 

state of “modem maturity.”

42. Commercial engagement with OEMs aids modem chip suppliers in the 

process of fixing bugs and reaching modem maturity.

43. To justify the required continuing investment in R&D, modem chip 

suppliers must make sales at sufficient scale and at sufficient margins to generate an 

adequate return.

1.5 Standard-setting organizations

44. Cellular communications standards are adopted by standard-setting 

organizations (“SSOs”), sometimes referred to as standards-development organizations.

45. The Telecommunications Industry Association (“TIA”) is the U.S. SSO 

that adopted the 2G-CDMA family of standards.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 8 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

46. Third Generation Partnership Project (“3GPP”) and the Third Generation 

Partnership Project 2 (“3GPP2”) are global collaborative partnerships of SSOs and other 

industry participants that develop technical specifications for cellular standards.

47. 3GPP developed the UMTS and LTE families of standards, and 3GPP2 

developed the 3G-CDMA family of standards.

48. Once 3GPP or 3GPP2 develops a standard, 3GPP’s or 3GPP2’s 

“organizational partners” will transpose that technical standard into their own standards.

49. The Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (“ATIS”) is the 

U.S. organizational partner of 3GPP, and TIA is the U.S. organizational partner of 

3GPP2. The European Telecommunications Standards Institute (“ETSI”) is the 

European organizational partner of 3GPP.

1.6 Standard essential patents and FRAND commitments

50. A patent containing one or more claims that cover technology that is

essential to complying with a standard is known as a “standard essential patent” (“SEP”).

51. A large number of companies involved in the cellular communications 

industry, including Qualcomm, have made patented contributions to 2G, 3G, and 4G 

cellular communication technologies. 

52. Before incorporating a technology into a standard, SSOs often require 

patent holders to disclose their patents and commit to license their SEPs on fair, 

reasonable, and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms.

53. The TIA, ATIS, and other relevant IPR policies require each party that 

participates in the standard-setting process to make licenses to its SEPs available to 

applicants on FRAND terms.

54. Qualcomm owns patents that it has declared essential to cellular 

standards, including 3G and 4G cellular standards.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 9 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

55. The TIA and ATIS IPR policies require Qualcomm to make licenses to

its SEPs available to modem-chip suppliers on FRAND terms.

56. Industrywide, patent holders, including Qualcomm, have declared 

hundreds of thousands of patents as potentially essential to cellular standards, including 

3G and 4G cellular standards.

1.7 Qualcomm FRAND commitments

58. Qualcomm has made commitments to SSOs that it will license its cellular 

SEPs on FRAND terms.

59. Qualcomm has committed to TIA to license relevant SEPs pursuant to the 

current TIA IPR policy or to prior versions of the policy.

60. Qualcomm’s commitments to TIA apply to each of its licenses in effect 

from 2006 to 2016 involving patents declared essential to cellular standards (including 

2G and 3G CDMA), to the extent such licenses are granted to licensees for the practice 

of any or all portions of the relevant standard.

61. Qualcomm has sent ATIS letters of assurance that Qualcomm will license 

relevant SEPs pursuant to the ATIS IPR policy.

62. Qualcomm’s commitments to ATIS apply to each of its licenses in effect 

from 2006 to 2016 involving patents declared essential to cellular standards (including 

UMTS and LTE), to the extent such licenses are granted to licensees for the purpose of 

implementing the relevant standard.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 10 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 Relevant Markets

2.1 CDMA modem chips

2.1.1 Non-CDMA modem chips are not a reasonable substitute for 

CDMA modem chips

2.1.1.1 Distinct uses of CDMA modem chips

63. Certain wireless carriers, including Verizon, Sprint, KDDI, and China 

Telecom, require that phones operating on their networks have CDMA capabilities. 

64. CDMA capability is necessary for backward compatibility on the 

networks of wireless carriers that have added LTE networks to legacy CDMA networks.

65. OEMs need CDMA-capable modem chips to meet the demands of 

wireless carriers with CDMA networks, and do not regard abandoning CDMA networks 

as a realistic option. 

66. OEMs do not consider CDMA modem chips and UMTS modem chips 

without CDMA capability to be substitutes when selecting chips to incorporate into their 

handsets. 

2.1.1.2 Industry recognition of a CDMA modem chip 

market

67. Industry participants have recognized that the competitive conditions in 

the sale of CDMA modem chips differ from the competitive conditions in the sale of 

non-CDMA chips. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 11 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2.1.2 Hypothetical monopolist test: CDMA

70. The hypothetical monopolist test is a standard tool used by economists to 

define relevant markets for antitrust purposes. The test has been in use for 40 years and 

has been adopted by both the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission.

71. The test begins with a narrow set of products (the candidate market) and 

asks whether a hypothetical monopolist selling all of the products in the candidate 

market could impose a small but significant non-transitory increase in price (“SSNIP,” 

taken to be 5% or more) without losing too many sales to make the price increase 

unprofitable. If the answer is yes, then the market is correctly defined. If not, the 

candidate market is too narrow because the relevant market includes other products.

72. The starting place for defining a relevant market is a reference product—

a product or a set of products that is offered by the firm that engaged in the 

anticompetitive conduct. The selection of the candidate market does not, however, 

change the test or pre-determine the outcome.

73. Applying the hypothetical monopolist test, there is a relevant antitrust 

product market consisting of modem chips with CDMA 2G or 3G capability. 

74. The prices of UMTS modem chips (without CDMA capability) provide 

an appropriate benchmark against which to evaluate the prices of CDMA modem chips. 

76. Both types of chips are sold to the same customers using similar 

procurement processes, and both types of chips are used as modems in cellular 

handsets..

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 12 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

77. The level of competition in the sale of CDMA modem chips has been 

different from the level of competition in the sale of UMTS modem chips, particularly 

from 2008 through 2014. 

78. Qualcomm has been a leading supplier of modem chips with UMTS 

functionality, but other modem chip suppliers also made substantial sales between 2008 

and 2014. 

79. By contrast, from at least 2008 through 2014, the only supplier of CDMA 

modem chips other than Qualcomm was VIA Telecom. 

80. VIA Telecom’s CDMA modem chips were imperfect substitutes for 

Qualcomm’s CDMA modem chips. VIA Telecom did not produce CDMA modem chips 

also compatible with 3G UMTS, 4G LTE, or any combination of these non-CDMA 

standards. VIA Telecom also trailed Qualcomm in CDMA capabilities, developing 

advanced CDMA features years after Qualcomm introduced modem chips with these 

features. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 13 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2.2 Premium LTE modem chips

2.2.1 No other chips are a reasonable substitute for premium LTE 

modem chips.

2.2.1.1 Distinct uses of premium LTE modem chips

90. Following LTE’s commercial launch, wireless carriers have launched 

hundreds of LTE networks around the globe.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 14 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

91. 3GPP Release 8, the first commercial release of the LTE standard, 

defined different handset or “user equipment” categories. Subsequent releases have 

defined additional user equipment categories. Handsets conforming to higher user 

equipment categories are capable of supporting higher peak downlink and uplink data 

rates and incorporate premium differentiating features, including advanced carrier 

aggregation and multiple in-multiple out. 

92. When selecting modem chips for premium-tier handsets, OEMs want 

modem chips that support premium features corresponding to higher LTE userequipment categories. Accordingly, Qualcomm and other modem-chip suppliers design 

premium LTE modem chips to offer functionality consistent with the expected 

functionality of a premium-tier handset that would be sold at the time that the modem 

chip would be used.

93. These premium LTE modem chips form an industry-recognized segment 

of the LTE modem chip business. The premium LTE modem chip market corresponds 

approximately to the LTE modem chips in premium handsets.

94. OEMs do not regard non-premium LTE modem chips as good substitutes 

for premium LTE modem chips at any given point in time.

95. OEMs require advanced features in the LTE modem chips that they use 

in their premium LTE handsets. A premium-tier handset that had a modem chip that 

lacked these features would not be a commercially viable product. Although modem 

chips with these features are significantly more expensive than modem chips without 

these features, OEMs producing premium handsets do not regard substitution to less 

capable modem chips as a realistic option.

96. Additionally, carriers sometimes explicitly or effectively require OEMs 

to offer handsets that support sufficiently advanced LTE standards and features.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 15 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2.2.1.2 Industry recognition of a premium LTE modem 

chip market

97. Industry participants have recognized that the competitive conditions in 

the sale of premium LTE modem chips differ from the competitive conditions in the sale 

of non-premium LTE chips. 

98. There are different competitors, different margins, and different costs 

associated with premium LTE modem chips compared to lower-tier LTE modem chips.

99. Premium LTE modem chips are sold at higher prices than non-premium 

LTE modem chips.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 16 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

104. OEMs and Qualcomm’s competitors likewise segment LTE modem chips 

into categories, including premium-tier LTE modem chips.

2.2.2 Hypothetical monopolist test: premium LTE 

105. Applying the hypothetical monopolist test, a relevant antitrust product 

market exists for premium LTE modem chips, i.e., chips with LTE capability used in 

premium-tier handsets, those handsets with a retail price of more than $300 before 2013 

and more than $400 since 2013.

106. The candidate premium LTE modem chip market has become somewhat 

more competitive since 2015 as Samsung, Intel, and increased their volumes 

of premium LTE modem chips. Qualcomm remains, however, the leading supplier of 

premium LTE modem chips. 

107. A decrease in price of at least 5% following entry indicates that a 

hypothetical monopolist of premium LTE modem chips would profitably impose a price 

increase of at least 5% above the levels that would result from competition among 

suppliers of premium LTE modem chips. This implies that premium LTE modem chips 

constitute a relevant antitrust market under the hypothetical monopolist test.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 17 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

110. Such evidence indicates that a hypothetical monopolist of premium LTE 

modem chips would profitably impose a SSNIP above competitive price levels. 

2.3 Geographic market

111. The relevant geographic market for CDMA modem chips and premium 

LTE modem chips is worldwide.

112. Modem chips are manufactured at facilities around the world.

113. Transportation costs are small relative to the price of a modem chip.

114. Many OEMs sell their handsets containing modem chips throughout the 

world.

3 Market and Monopoly Power

3.1 Qualcomm market and monopoly power in CDMA modem chips

115. Qualcomm possessed monopoly power in the market for CDMA modem 

chips from 2006 through 2016. 

116. Qualcomm possessed market power in the market for CDMA modem 

chips from 2006 through 2016. 

3.1.1 OEMs have lacked good alternatives to Qualcomm for CDMA 

modem chips

117. OEMs have lacked good alternatives to Qualcomm’s CDMA modem 

chips.

118. OEMs have not regarded other suppliers’ CDMA modem chips as good 

alternatives to Qualcomm’s CDMA modem chips. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 18 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

 

121. For its launch in 2011 of the first CDMA iPhone, Apple believed it had 

no choice but to use Qualcomm CDMA modem chips, as Apple considered Qualcomm 

to be the only viable supplier of CDMA modem chips for the iPhone.

123. In 2009, 99% of Samsung’s CDMA modem chips were supplied by 

Qualcomm. VIA supplied the remaining 1% of CDMA modem chips.

126. From at least 2008 through 2014, the only supplier of CDMA modem 

chips other than Qualcomm was VIA Telecom.

127. OEMs did not regard VIA Telecom’s CDMA modem chips as good 

alternatives for Qualcomm’s CDMA modem chips. VIA Telecom did not produce 

CDMA modem chips that were also compatible with 3G UMTS, 4G LTE, or any 

combination of these non-CDMA standards. VIA Telecom also trailed Qualcomm in 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 19 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CDMA capabilities, developing advanced CDMA features years after Qualcomm 

introduced modem chips with these features.

3.1.2 CDMA modem chip market share

128.

3.1.3 CDMA modem chip barriers to entry

129. There are substantial barriers to entry into the CDMA modem chip 

market, including the need to make substantial investment in research and development 

and the need to develop and maintain relationships with key OEM customers, including 

through product testing and validation.

130. Unlike 3GPP standards (UMTS and LTE), CDMA specifications are 

poorly documented.

131. The full value of CDMA is realized only with complementary multimode 

technology and backward compatibility. Developing these technologies is expensive and 

time consuming.

132. The Qualcomm practices at issue in this case have created an additional 

barrier to entry to the market for CDMA modem chips.

3.2 Qualcomm market and monopoly power in Premium LTE modem 

chips

133. Qualcomm possessed monopoly power in the market for premium LTE 

modem chips each year from 2011 to 2016.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 20 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

134. Qualcomm possessed market power in the market for premium LTE 

modem chips each year from 2011 to 2016.

3.2.1 Few companies make premium LTE chips

135. Qualcomm enjoyed a significant first-mover advantage in the sale of LTE 

chips.

136. Qualcomm was the sole supplier of multimode premium LTE modem 

chips that included both UMTS and CDMA capability for most of the period from 2011 

through 2016.

137. OEMs have lacked good alternatives to Qualcomm’s premium LTE 

modem chips.

141. Aside from Apple, most OEMs prefer to source integrated SoCs, rather 

than thin modems. 

142. Because Intel offers thin modems, rather than SoCs, its premium LTE 

modem chips offer a limited competitive constraint at OEMs other than Apple. 

143. Before 2018, OEMs viewed Qualcomm as the only viable merchant 

supplier for premium LTE modem chips with CDMA capability.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 21 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

144. The recent ability of Intel, Samsung, and HiSilicon to produce premium 

LTE modem chips has not eliminated Qualcomm’s market power in premium LTE 

modem chips. Qualcomm has continued to possess substantial market power in the 

market for premium LTE modem chips.

3.2.2 Premium LTE modem chip market share

3.2.3 Premium LTE modem chip barriers to entry

148. There are a number of substantial barriers to entry into the market for 

premium LTE modem chips. 

149. An entrant into the market for premium LTE modem chips would need to 

make a substantial investment in research and development.

150. An entrant into the market for premium LTE modem chips would need to 

work with OEMs to test and certify its products for incorporation into handsets, and to 

work with wireless carriers to test its products with infrastructure equipment.

151. An entrant into the market for premium LTE modem chips would need 

several years, in addition to large R&D expenditures, to develop viable products.

152. Qualcomm has discouraged entry into the market for premium LTE 

modem chips through the conduct at issue in this case. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 22 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

153. An entrant into the market for premium LTE modem chips would be 

required to make significantly greater investments to compete effectively in premium 

LTE modem chips than to compete effectively in lower-tier modem chips.

4 Qualcomm’s No License-No Chips Policy

4.1 Qualcomm will not sell modem chips unless the purchaser signs a 

separate license agreement

154. Qualcomm does not sell modem chips to OEMs that are not licensed to 

Qualcomm’s relevant cellular SEPs.

155. Qualcomm’s “no license-no chips” policy is effectuated through 

Qualcomm supply agreements and license agreements with OEMs, and 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 23 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

21

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

161. Qualcomm’s policy of not selling modem chips to unlicensed OEMs is 

well known by OEMs and other industry participants.

163. Qualcomm’s licensing business model is unique among suppliers of 

components for cellular handsets. 

164. Component suppliers other than Qualcomm do not require purchasers to 

separately take a license applying to handsets using competitors’ products before they

will sell commercial quantities of components.

165. Qualcomm’s licensing business model for modem chips is also unique 

within Qualcomm. 

4.2 Qualcomm routinely invokes its no license-no chips policy in 

licensing negotiations with OEMs

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 24 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

168. Qualcomm communicated to Huawei, 

Samsung, and other OEMs during license negotiations that they could not 

purchase Qualcomm modem chips if they became unlicensed.

4.3 OEMs are vulnerable to coercion through Qualcomm’s no license-no 

chips policy

171. Once an OEM selects a Qualcomm modem chip for its handset, the OEM 

is effectively “locked in” to that modem chip for that handset, and remains so over the 

commercial life of the handset.

172. The design cycle for a handset is long: modem chips are often selected 

for handsets well over a year before an OEM ships commercial quantities of the handset. 

173. In order to design handsets, OEMs need information about Qualcomm 

modem chips, and other technical support, that Qualcomm generally provides only if an 

OEM is licensed.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 25 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

23

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

174. Contract manufacturers (“CMs”), including Hon Hai Precision Industry 

Co. Ltd. and FIH Mobile Ltd. (collectively, “Foxconn”), Pegatron Corporation 

(“Pegatron”), Wistron Corporation (“Wistron”), and Compal Electronics, Inc. 

(“Compal”), which manufacture cellular handsets for a separate brand (like Apple), 

require licenses with Qualcomm in order to be able to source Qualcomm modem chips 

requested by the CMs’ customers.

175. OEMs have been dependent on Qualcomm for supply of CDMA modem 

chips and premium LTE modem chips at the time they signed license agreements with 

Qualcomm, because they lacked viable alternatives to Qualcomm.

 

e. Samsung depended on Qualcomm’s CDMA modem chips at the 

time of the parties’ 2008-2009 license negotiations. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 26 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

g.

Apple viewed Qualcomm as the only viable supplier of CDMA modem chips.

h.

Apple viewed Qualcomm as the only viable supplier of CDMA 

modem chips and was dependent upon Qualcomm for supply of CDMA modem 

chips.

i.

Apple was dependent upon Qualcomm for supply of CDMA modem chips and 

premium LTE modem chips for certain of its upcoming iPhone models.

176. OEMs believed that if they lost access to Qualcomm modem chips they

would be unable to sell viable CDMA or premium LTE handsets, and would lose out on 

the associated revenue and be unable to recoup sunk costs.

177. OEMs recognize that Qualcomm’s modem chip supply and associated 

engineering support provide Qualcomm with leverage that Qualcomm would not 

otherwise have in licensing negotiations. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 27 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

180. Qualcomm has repeatedly used its track record of securing licenses on its 

preferred royalty and other terms to establish benchmarks that it can exploit in future 

license negotiations, including with other prospective licensees.

4.4 Qualcomm’s no license-no chips policy insulates it from the ordinary 

constraints of FRAND commitments, including the threat of 

litigation

181. In any license negotiation, the parties negotiate based on how the 

prospective license terms compare to their alternatives. 

182. Ordinarily, if a patent holder and a potential licensee can neither agree on 

license terms nor agree to submit those terms to binding arbitration, the patent holder 

initiates a patent infringement suit in which a court resolves issues of patent validity and 

infringement and, if the court deems a patent valid and infringed, determines and awards 

reasonable royalties. In a patent suit involving SEPs, both parties may address 

arguments to the court on how the SEP holder’s FRAND commitments should affect the 

court’s determination of reasonable royalties.

183. A potential SEP licensee may also initiate a declaratory judgment action 

addressing the same issues, including whether a SEP holder’s license offer is consistent 

with its FRAND obligations.

184. Qualcomm and other industry participants understand that the FRAND 

licensing commitment operates as at least a partial constraint on royalties by limiting a 

patent holder’s power to withhold technology if a licensee does not agree on terms.

185. OEMs that regard Qualcomm’s royalties as unreasonable would 

ordinarily have the ability and incentive to challenge Qualcomm’s royalty demands in 

court without the threat of interrupting their business.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 28 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

186. Instead of the typical situation where a licensee’s alternatives to 

accepting a proposed license are accepting the risk of patent infringement litigation or 

filing a declaratory judgment action, Qualcomm’s no license-no chips policy has added 

the loss of Qualcomm modem chips—and therefore interruption of licensees’ 

businesses—as a consequence.

187. OEMs cannot negotiate with Qualcomm against the backdrop of patent 

infringement litigation because Qualcomm will not sell OEMs modem chips without a 

license.

188. OEMs cannot negotiate with Qualcomm against the backdrop of a 

declaratory judgment action against Qualcomm, including as to enforcement of FRAND 

contract rights, because they fear losing access to Qualcomm’s modem chips.

189. OEMs regard licensing negotiations with Qualcomm as atypical 

compared to other SEP licensors like Ericsson and Nokia; there is a meaningful 

negotiation with other licensors and not with Qualcomm. With licensors other than 

Qualcomm, there is a give-and-take on key terms like royalties. 

190. Other licensors in the cellular industry, apart from Qualcomm, take into 

account the value of cross-licenses received when setting royalties for their cellular 

SEPs.

191. Typically, when one company attempts to collect royalties from another, 

the prospective licensee will seek justification for the royalties requested in the form of 

information establishing infringement, validity, and value of the asserted patents. It is 

standard licensing practice to engage in such a process through the exchange and review 

of claim charts for all—or for the strongest—patents at issue.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 29 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

193. Most other major cellular SEP holders have been required to litigate the 

value of their patents when license negotiations fail.

4.5 Qualcomm’s no license-no chips policy results in elevated royalties

194. OEMs have long viewed Qualcomm’s royalties as excessive and nonFRAND.

195. OEMs have long viewed Qualcomm’s insistence on uncompensated 

grantbacks of their patents for Qualcomm’s modem chips as additional compensation

that they must pay Qualcomm for a license.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 30 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4.5.1 OEM and rival testimony and documents

204. OEM and rival testimony and analyses establish that Qualcomm’s no 

license-no chips policy inflated Qualcomm’s royalties. 

205. OEMs do not regard Qualcomm’s royalties and other license terms as fair 

compensation for a license to Qualcomm’s patents.

206. Testimony from Apple, Huawei, and Samsung 

witnesses establishes that the OEMs did not consider Qualcomm’s royalties to reflect the 

fair value of Qualcomm’s patents.

207. Despite OEMs’ assessment that Qualcomm’s license terms are not fair 

value for access to Qualcomm’s patents, OEMs have signed license agreements with 

Qualcomm that they would not have otherwise signed to gain access to Qualcomm’s 

modem chips. 

208. Some OEMs signed license agreements only after Qualcomm threatened 

to terminate their supply of Qualcomm modem chips. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 31 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4.5.2 Qualcomm obtains royalty-free cross-licenses from OEMs 

that it considers valuable

 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 32 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 33 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6 Qualcomm’s Refusal to License Rival Modem Chip Suppliers

6.1 Qualcomm will not license rivals

6.1.1 Qualcomm’s current policy is to not make licenses available to

modem chip suppliers

225. Qualcomm has a policy of not making exhaustive licenses for its cellular 

SEPs available to competing modem chip suppliers.

226. Other modem chip suppliers understand that Qualcomm’s standard 

business practice is to not provide licenses to modem chip suppliers.

6.1.2 Modem chip suppliers have requested licenses, and 

Qualcomm has rebuffed them

227. Modem chip suppliers have requested licenses from Qualcomm, but 

Qualcomm has refused requests for exhaustive licenses.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 34 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

32

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 35 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

33

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

249. NTT DoCoMo tried to get a modem chip license from Qualcomm but 

was unsuccessful.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 36 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

34

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6.1.3 Qualcomm’s historical ASIC agreements were not licenses.

255.

256.

6.2 Modem-chip level licensing (or multi-level licensing) is practicable

257. It is possible and practical to license component-level patents to 

component manufacturers, while simultaneously licensing any device-level patents 

owned to device manufacturers. 

6.3 Intended effect

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 37 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7 Qualcomm’s Agreements with Apple

261. Apple has negotiated with Qualcomm in an effort to reduce the 

Qualcomm patent royalty burden that Apple bears. As a result of these negotiations, 

Apple entered into agreements with Qualcomm in 2007, 2011, and 2013.

262. Apple does not manufacture iPhones and iPads itself, but instead uses 

third-party CMs to manufacture those products.

263. The CMs that currently manufacture iPhones and/or iPads for Apple 

include: (i) Foxconn, (ii) Pegatron, (iii) Wistron, and (iv) Compal.

7.1 Marketing Incentive Agreement (2007)

264. Under a 2007 Marketing Incentive Agreement (“MIA”), Qualcomm 

agreed to rebate to Apple royalties that Qualcomm received from Apple’s contract 

manufacturers in excess of a specified per-handset cap. Qualcomm’s payment 

obligations were conditioned upon, among other things, Apple not selling or licensing a 

handset implementing the WiMAX standard, a prospective 4G cellular standard.

7.1.1 Apple’s initial iPhones

265. Apple had designed the first iPhone to use GSM technology as required 

for AT&T’s network, as AT&T contracted with Apple for exclusive U.S. distribution 

rights to the iPhone.

266. Apple’s initial iPhone models did not incorporate Qualcomm modem 

chips. Apple instead used Infineon modem chips.

267.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 38 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

36

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

268. Because of its concerns with the standard license terms required by 

Qualcomm 

 Apple concluded that it could not become a direct licensee of 

Qualcomm, and instead elected to use an indirect licensing arrangement with Qualcomm 

through Apple’s CMs.

7.1.2 Qualcomm’s concerns about WiMAX

269. In 2007, the WiMAX standard was a prospective next-generation cellular 

standard, with a low-cost royalty model, championed by Intel and opposed by 

Qualcomm.

270. In 2007, Qualcomm was behind in developing WiMAX modem chips.

271.

 

7.1.3 MIA terms

272. In January 2007, Apple and Qualcomm entered into a Marketing 

Incentive Agreement dated as of January 8, 2007 (“MIA”). 

273. The MIA provided Apple with royalty reductions conditioned on 

274. Under the MIA and subsequent arrangements between Apple and 

Qualcomm, Apple has not been a direct licensee of Qualcomm. Rather, Qualcomm has 

charged Apple’s CMs royalties at 

 and Apple has provided funds to 

its CMs for payment of monies to Qualcomm. Apple then received separate rebates from 

Qualcomm to reduce its royalty burden.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 39 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

37

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

275. Under the MIA, Qualcomm agreed, among other things, to make 

payments to Apple equal to the amount by which the CMs’ royalty payments to 

Qualcomm exceeded a reference amount of 

276. The reference amount was agreed upon by top executives of Apple 

and Qualcomm, 

277. Under the MIA, Apple agreed, among other things, not to sell or license 

products implementing the WiMAX standard, 

278. Qualcomm could terminate the MIA, and Qualcomm’s payments to 

Apple under the MIA would be forfeited, if Apple sold or licensed commercial 

quantities of phones implementing the WiMAX standard.

279.

7.2 Transition Agreements (2011 and 2013)

280. Qualcomm and Apple entered into a Transition Agreement in 2011 

(“TA”) and First Amendment to Transition Agreement in 2013 (“FATA,” and together 

with the TA, the “Transition Agreements”). Under the Transition Agreements, 

Qualcomm provided Apple large payments that constituted partial relief from 

Qualcomm royalties. Qualcomm conditioned this relief on Apple’s exclusive use of 

Qualcomm modem chips in new iPhone and iPad models.

7.2.1 2011 Transition Agreement (TA)

281. Under Qualcomm’s 2011 agreement with Apple, Qualcomm agreed to 

make substantial incentive payments from 2011 through 2016, explicitly conditioned 

upon Apple using Qualcomm modem chips exclusively in all new iPhone and iPad 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 40 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

38

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

models. If, during this period, Apple launched a new handset with a non-Qualcomm 

modem chip, it would forfeit all future payments and, depending on when a handset 

launched, could be required to refund to Qualcomm payments Apple had already 

received.

282. Following the release of the initial iPhone models on the AT&T network, 

Apple decided to expand the availability of the iPhone to additional consumers by 

supporting other carriers that operated on a CDMA network such as Verizon, one of the 

largest carriers in the United States.

283. As part of these efforts, Apple formulated plans to release an iPhone on 

the Verizon network, which required CDMA-compatible handsets.

284. In order to manufacture iPhones that would function on the Verizon 

network, Apple needed to procure CDMA modem chips.

285. Apple believed it had no choice but to use Qualcomm CDMA modem 

chips, as Apple considered Qualcomm to be the only viable supplier of CDMA modem 

chips for the iPhone.

286. For the iPhone 4 GSM/UMTS (launched in 2010 on the AT&T network)

and for its earlier iPhones, Apple procured modem chips from Infineon. For the iPhone 4 

CDMA (launched in February 2011 on Verizon), the 3G multimode (CDMA/UMTS) 

iPhone 4S (launched in October 2011), and every new iPhone launched thereafter

through March of 2016, Apple procured multimode CDMA/UMTS modem chips from 

Qualcomm.

287. Apple repeatedly sought further relief from its substantial Qualcomm 

royalty burden, both in general and as related to CDMA products in particular.

288. Apple originally believed that the MIA (

 would apply to both CDMA and UMTS devices, 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 41 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

39

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 but Apple subsequently became aware of Qualcomm’s position 

that the 2007 MIA—and the royalty rebates provided thereunder—did not apply to 

CDMA products 

 

290. Due to Qualcomm’s position that the MIA—and the royalty rebates

provided thereunder—did not apply to CDMA products in late 2010 Apple 

and Qualcomm negotiated in parallel regarding CDMA and UMTS modem chip pricing 

and the potential extension of the MIA royalty rebate program to CDMA devices.

291. Rather than simply extending the MIA rebates to CDMA devices, 

however, Qualcomm offered CDMA royalty relief in the form of up to in 

conditional payments from Qualcomm to Apple conditioned upon Apple purchasing 

modem chips exclusively from Qualcomm for its new products.

292. In February 2011, Apple, Qualcomm, and Qualcomm CDMA 

Technologies Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd. (“QCTAP”) entered into the TA, effective as of 

February 11, 2011.

293. The TA effectively provided Apple with partial royalty relief by 

extending to CDMA handsets the MIA’s royalty-based rebates for UMTS handsets 

(rebating to Apple royalties above paid by its Contract Manufacturers), in 

exchange for Apple’s commitment to launch new devices using exclusively Qualcomm 

modem chips.

294. Under the TA, Qualcomm agreed, among other things, to provide Apple: 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 42 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

40

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

295. The TA permitted Qualcomm to immediately terminate the agreement 

and make no further payments if Apple were to sell commercial quantities (i.e., more 

than ) of any new product after October 1, 2011 incorporating a non-Qualcomm 

modem chip. 

296. The TA further provided that Apple’s sale during 2013 of commercial 

quantities (i.e., more than ) of any new product incorporating a non-Qualcomm 

modem chip would require Apple to refund to Qualcomm 

7.2.2 2013 First Amendment to Transition Agreement (FATA) and 

Business Cooperation and Patent Agreement (BCPA)

297. The 2013 First Amendment to Transition Agreement (“FATA”) and 

Business Cooperation and Patent Agreement (“BCPA”) between Qualcomm and Apple 

modified and extended the exclusivity and conditional royalty relief arrangements set 

forth in the 2007 MIA and 2011 TA. 

298. In 2012, Apple continued to be dependent upon Qualcomm for chip 

supply, both because Qualcomm remained the only viable supplier of CDMA modem 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 43 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

41

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

chips, and because Qualcomm had developed a lead in premium LTE modem chips that 

Apple required for iPhones under development for 2013.

299. The MIA term expired at the end of 2012. Because the MIA was nearing 

expiration, Apple sought in 2012 to negotiate an agreement with Qualcomm to continue 

and extend the partial royalty relief provided by the MIA’s rebate arrangement.

 

 

304. In late 2012 and early 2013, Apple and Qualcomm negotiated a set of 

agreements that extended and modified the effective royalty relief that Qualcomm had 

previously provided to Apple under the MIA and the TA conditioned upon Apple’s 

agreement not to bring a FRAND challenge against Qualcomm and to extend the 

exclusive supply arrangement for new models begun under the TA.

305. On February 28, 2013, Apple and Qualcomm entered into the BCPA, 

dated as of January 1, 2013.

306. Also on February 28, 2013, Apple, Qualcomm, and QCTAP entered into 

the FATA, effective as of January 1, 2013.

307. On February 28, 2013, Apple and Qualcomm entered into a Statement of 

Work for Qualcomm Chipsets for 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 44 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

42

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 SOW,” and together with the BCPA and the FATA, the “2013 Agreements”).

The relates to the supply of Qualcomm modem 

chips, including those incorporated into Apple’s iPhone 5C, iPhone 5S, iPhone 6, iPhone 

6 Plus, iPhone 6S, and iPhone 6S Plus.

308. The 2013 Agreements were negotiated and signed as a package deal

covering both licensing and modem chip supply terms.

309. Like the MIA, the BCPA provided that Qualcomm would, among other 

things, make payments to Apple equal to the amount by which the CMs’ royalty 

payments to Qualcomm exceeded a reference amount . Under the BCPA, the 

reference amount increased from the (under the MIA) to 

310. Qualcomm’s obligation to make BCPA rebate payments was subject to, 

among other terms, a condition that Apple neither initiate nor induce others to initiate 

litigation claiming that Qualcomm had failed to offer a license on FRAND terms.

311. The balance of the royalty relief provided to Apple under the 2013 

Agreements came in the form of substantial incentive payments under the FATA in 

2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, linked to Apple’s purchases of Qualcomm modem chips 

and explicitly conditioned on Apple sourcing modem chips for new iPad and iPhone 

models exclusively from Qualcomm. The FATA established a “Marketing Fund”

pursuant to which Qualcomm rebated an additional 

 incorporating a Qualcomm modem chip. In addition to the 

Marketing Fund, the FATA also provided for up to 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 45 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

43

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

312. By increasing the royalty rebate reference amount from (under the 

MIA) to (under the BCPA), and adding a modem chip rebate only 

on Qualcomm chips, the 2013 Agreements effectively increased the cost to Apple of 

purchasing a chip from any of Qualcomm’s competitors. 

313. The FATA further provided that Qualcomm may immediately terminate 

the agreement, make no further payments, and “clawback” certain past incentive 

payments if Apple were to sell commercial quantities (i.e., more than ) of any new 

product incorporating a non-Qualcomm modem chip.

314. potentially at risk if Apple were to launch a new 

product using modem chips from a Qualcomm rival during the term of the FATA. For 

example, Apple forecast that any use of a non-Qualcomm modem chip in 2015 would 

result in return or forfeiture of over in rebates associated with design wins 

already awarded to Qualcomm.

 

7.3 The 2011 and 2013 agreements prevented Apple from working with 

other modem chip suppliers

317. In all, Qualcomm’s 2011 and 2013 agreements with Apple provided for 

 in conditional rebates from Qualcomm to Apple for modem chip sales 

from 2011 to 2016. These conditional rebates effectively penalized Apple’s use of any 

modem chips supplied by Qualcomm’s competitors.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 46 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

318. The large penalties that Apple would face under its agreements with 

Qualcomm in the event that it sourced modem chips from another modem chip supplier 

dis-incentivized Apple from engaging with and using alternative suppliers during the 

effective exclusivity period under these agreements.

319. As a result of the exclusivity terms in its agreements with Qualcomm, 

Apple sourced modem chips exclusively from Qualcomm for all new iPad and iPhone 

products that it launched over the five-year period from October 2011 until September 

2016.

7.3.1.1 The 2013 Agreements 

322. Apple had an interest in developing and working with additional 

suppliers of modem chips, and fostering competition in the modem chip market.

324. Apple concluded that it was economically 

advantageous to use 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 47 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

45

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 despite forfeiting amounts that would have otherwise been due 

 if Apple remained exclusive.

 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 48 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8 Harm to Competition

8.1 Generally

334. Qualcomm’s no license-no chips policy, its refusal to make licenses 

available to competing modem chip suppliers, 

, and its agreements with Apple, taken as a 

whole, have tended to hamper competition in markets for CDMA and premium LTE 

modem chips.

8.2 Qualcomm’s royalties are unreasonably high

335. The royalties that Qualcomm is able to obtain for its SEPs exceed by a 

wide margin any range of royalties that may be considered fair and reasonable, and are 

disproportionate to the royalties charged by other licensors of cellular SEPs.

338. Qualcomm’s royalties far exceed the range of fair and reasonable 

royalties calculated using reliable methodologies, along with studies and measures that 

Qualcomm has itself used in the ordinary course to compare the strength of Qualcomm’s 

SEP portfolio to the SEP portfolios of other licensors.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 49 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8.3 Qualcomm’s no license-no chips policy has raised the cost to OEMs 

of using modem chips supplied by Qualcomm’s competitors

339. Through its no license-no chips policy, Qualcomm has brought to bear 

bargaining leverage based on its monopoly power in relevant markets for modem chips 

on its patent licensing negotiations with OEMs.

340. This leverage has allowed Qualcomm to induce OEMs to agree to pay a 

surcharge in the form of royalties higher than the OEMs would otherwise have been 

willing to accept on all handsets they sell, regardless of whether those handsets use 

modem chips supplied by Qualcomm’s competitors.

341. These unreasonably high royalties have harmed competition in relevant 

markets for CDMA and Premium LTE modem chips and harmed consumers.

342. When evaluating handset designs, OEMs consider the all-in price of a 

modem chip, which includes both (i) the nominal price of the modem chip, and (ii) any 

associated patent royalties that the OEM must pay to use that modem chip in a cellular 

handset.

343. By using bargaining leverage based on its CDMA and Premium LTE 

modem-chip monopoly power to extract unreasonably high royalties (in excess of a 

FRAND rate) on every handset that OEMs sell, Qualcomm has effectively raised the 

latter component of modem chips’ all-in price by an added increment that does not 

reflect the value of Qualcomm’s SEPs, but rather reflects Qualcomm’s market power 

over modem chips.

344. As a result of Qualcomm’s no license-no chips policy, the all-in price of 

any modem chip includes (i) the nominal price of the modem chip itself, which the OEM 

must pay the modem-chip manufacturer; (ii) a reasonable royalty, which the OEM must 

pay to Qualcomm to practice Qualcomm’s patents; and (iii) an added surcharge, which 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 50 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

48

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the OEM must pay to Qualcomm to ensure continued access to Qualcomm’s modemchip supply, regardless of whether the modem chip at issue is supplied by Qualcomm or 

one of Qualcomm’s competitors.

346. The surcharge that OEMs must pay to maintain access to Qualcomm 

modem chips even when they purchase a modem chip from one of Qualcomm’s 

competitors puts Qualcomm’s competitors at a competitive disadvantage.

347. Though Qualcomm imposes a nominal surcharge on sales of its own 

modem chips as well, that surcharge does not impose any additional cost on transactions 

that take place between OEMs and Qualcomm. This is because Qualcomm—a party to 

these transactions—receives the surcharge in question.

348. As applied to Qualcomm’s own modem chips, the surcharge does not 

represent an additional cost, but additional profits—a component of the all-in price that 

OEMs must pay Qualcomm to use its modem chips.

8.4 By imposing a surcharge that OEMs pay regardless of whether 

OEMs use Qualcomm chips or rivals’ chips, Qualcomm’s no licenseno chips policy weakens rivals

349. By imposing an unreasonable cost on Qualcomm’s competitors’ sales, the 

surcharge reduces demand for competitors’ modem chips, reduces competitors’ sales, 

and diminishes competitors’ ability and incentive to invest and innovate. 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 51 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

49

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

350. Suppliers of CDMA and premium LTE modem chips must ship 

substantial volumes of chips and earn significant margins on those shipments to sustain 

the research and development required to maintain a viable business.

351. By lowering volume available to modem chip competitors, through 

higher effective costs associated with using their modem chips, Qualcomm’s surcharge 

has hampered those competitors in their attempts to obtain benefits of scale. 

352. By reducing competing suppliers’ sales, Qualcomm’s surcharge 

diminishes competitors’ abilities and incentives to invest and innovate.

353. Qualcomm’s no license-no chips policy reduces competitors’ abilities to 

invest and innovate in next-generation technologies.

354. A number of Qualcomm’s former modem-chip competitors have 

shuttered their businesses, citing inadequate sales and margins.

8.5 Harm to consumers

356. The Qualcomm surcharge raises the cost to an OEM of using 

competitors’ modem chips, compared to the but-for world in which Qualcomm did not 

impose a surcharge. 

357. The surcharge weakens the competitive constraints that competitors 

would otherwise impose on Qualcomm’s own pricing decisions, compared to the but-for 

world in which Qualcomm did not impose a surcharge.

358. OEMs predictably pass through to final consumers in the form of higher 

prices for handsets at least some portion of the surcharge OEMs pay in the form of 

royalties, and any supra-competitive price OEMs pay for modem chips as a result of 

Qualcomm’s rivals’ reduced ability to compete.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 52 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

50

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8.6 Qualcomm’s agreements with Apple foreclosed an important and 

substantial portion of the premium LTE modem chip market

359. Qualcomm’s Transition Agreements with Apple foreclosed Qualcomm’s 

competitors, including Intel, from a substantial and important share of the market for 

premium LTE modem chips.

360. Qualcomm’s Transition Agreements with Apple in 2011 and 2013 were a 

significant factor in Intel’s failure to win business at Apple 

361.

 

362. During the term of the Transition Agreements, Apple desired a second 

source for its products, apart from Qualcomm.

365. Absent the FATA, Apple had an interest in maintaining multiple sources 

of modem chips, and had the incentive and ability to create new product models, adjust 

performance requirements, and modify launch schedules to facilitate entry of a new 

modem chip supplier.

366. Intel did not secure a design win from Apple until it secured a design win 

for certain models of the iPhone 7, released in late 2016.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 53 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

367. Qualcomm’s agreements with Apple foreclosed a substantial share of the 

market share for premium LTE modem chips, between 48% and 50% for each year from 

2012 through 2014.

368. Apple is a strategically important customer for modem chip suppliers. 

Apple sells large volumes of premium handsets that require premium LTE modem 

chips, which command higher prices than lower-tier modem chips.

369. Winning an Apple design would provide a modem chip manufacturer 

increased scale.

370. Increased scale allows modem chip manufacturers to spread research and 

development costs over a greater number of units.

371. Winning an Apple design would provide modem chip manufacturers with 

a number of competitive benefits apart from increased scale.

372. Modem chip suppliers must secure certification of their modems from 

wireless carriers and infrastructure vendors.

373. Working with Apple allows a modem chip manufacturer to field-test 

modems on a worldwide basis.

374. Extensive field-testing is the only way modem chip manufacturers can 

ensure that a modem chip will work as expected in a wide range of real-world 

conditions.

375. Wireless carriers and infrastructure vendors would be more likely to work 

with modem chip suppliers that have won an Apple design.

376. Being an incumbent supplier at a given OEM makes it easier to obtain 

future business at that OEM.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 54 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

52

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

377. If Intel had won an Apple design before the 2016 iPhone, it would have 

enjoyed some or all of the competitive benefits discussed above during the relevant time 

period. 

379. Intel won modem chip business with Apple beginning with certain 

models of the iPhone 7. Intel has benefitted from its status as a modem chip supplier to 

Apple since late 2016. 

380. If Intel had won an Apple design earlier, it could have been a stronger 

competitor to Qualcomm today.

382. As a result of Broadcom exited 

the modem chip market.

383. Broadcom’s prevented it from achieving the high-margin premium 

modem chip sales it needs to be profitable.

8.7 Refusal to license rivals

384. Qualcomm’s refusal to make SEP licenses available to competing modem 

chip suppliers has contributed to Qualcomm’s maintenance of a surcharge, in the form 

of excess royalties OEMs agree to pay regardless of whether the modem chip at issue is 

supplied by Qualcomm or one of Qualcomm’s competitors.

385. Unlike OEMs, Qualcomm’s competitors do not depend on Qualcomm for 

modem chip supply. If Qualcomm licensed modem chip suppliers, its ability to use its 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 55 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

53

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

modem chip market power to extract unreasonably high royalties paid on cellular 

products that include non-Qualcomm modem chips would be significantly reduced.

386. During the relevant time period, Qualcomm’s refusal to make licenses 

available to competing modem chip suppliers deterred entry and investment in relevant 

modem chip markets.

387. During the relevant time period, Qualcomm’s refusal to make licenses 

available to competing modem chip suppliers impaired the competitiveness of 

Qualcomm’s existing modem chip rivals.

388. Qualcomm’s non-exhaustive agreements with modem chip suppliers 

contained onerous restrictions that impaired Qualcomm’s modem chip rivals from 

making sales to handset OEMs. 

389. Qualcomm’s non-exhaustive agreements with modem chip suppliers, 

including , restricted rival suppliers from selling modem 

chips to OEMs that were unlicensed, enhancing Qualcomm’s leverage in royalty and 

licensing negotiations with OEMs.

8.8 The market reflects the tendency of Qualcomm’s conduct to exclude 

competition

390. During the relevant time period, expected competition did not materialize 

in the CDMA and premium LTE modem chip markets.

391. During the relevant time period, expected competition was deterred from 

entering the CDMA and premium LTE modem chip markets in part by Qualcomm’s 

anticompetitive conduct.

392. During the relevant time period, existing competition exited the CDMA 

and premium LTE modem chip markets in part due to Qualcomm’s anticompetitive 

conduct.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 56 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

54

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

393. The CDMA and premium LTE modem chip markets are highly 

concentrated.

9 Remedy

9.1 Qualcomm’s conduct is ongoing, and absent injunctive relief the 

resulting competitive harm is likely to continue and recur

394. Qualcomm’s no license-no chips policy, its refusal to make licenses 

available to competing modem chip suppliers, 

 are ongoing, and absent injunctive 

relief the resulting competitive harm is likely to continue and recur.

395. Qualcomm has not voluntarily ceased the challenged conduct despite 

known antitrust risk, OEM complaints, foreign antitrust enforcement actions, and the 

present action.

396. Hundreds of Qualcomm licenses, secured through Qualcomm’s no 

license-no chips policy, remain in effect.

398. Qualcomm’s practice of not making SEP licenses available to rival 

modem chip suppliers remains in effect.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 57 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

400. Qualcomm continues to engage in the challenged conduct despite recent 

investigations, fines, and injunctions by foreign competition authorities, including the 

Korea Fair Trade Commission.

401. There is a substantial likelihood that Qualcomm will have market power 

in market(s) for 5G modem chips.

403. Qualcomm has been the leading modem chip supplier for many years, 

particularly as to premium and leading-edge modem chips.

404. Qualcomm’s business model has historically given it a time-to-market 

advantage at times of technological transition, and Qualcomm expects to lead the 

transition to 5G. 

406.

407. Qualcomm has publicly stated that it has a significant lead—of at least 

12-24 months—over its merchant competitors in bringing 5G chips to market; that all 

OEMs and carriers working to bring 5G to market are working with Qualcomm; that no 

other company comes close to Qualcomm on 4G LTE Advanced or on 5G; that it 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 58 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

56

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

anticipates a large 5G market share; and that it anticipates emerging from the transition 

to 5G as a larger and even better-positioned company.

408. Market power in 5G modem chips, taken together with the ongoing 

nature of the challenged business practices, would allow Qualcomm—absent injunctive 

relief—to continue to extract unreasonably high royalties and other anticompetitive 

licensing and modem chip sale terms from OEMs.

9.2 The forms of injunctive relief sought by the FTC are practicable and 

consistent with normal industry practice

409. Qualcomm’s current licenses are fundamentally infected by Qualcomm’s 

decades-long course of anticompetitive conduct.

410. Going forward, Qualcomm’s current licenses cannot serve as relevant 

benchmarks for determining whether license terms and conditions are fair and 

reasonable.

411. Qualcomm is able to—and has touted its ability to—modestly reform and 

adjust its licensing practices as required by regulatory risks or mandates.

412. Modem-chip-level licensing and multi-level licensing, if necessary, are

practicable.

414. Other suppliers of standard-compliant cellular components routinely sell 

components on an exhaustive basis.

415. Multi-level licensing, if necessary, facilitates efficient negotiations by 

enabling the parsing of information about where relevant patents apply in the value 

chain.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 59 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

57

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PRETRIAL PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) is a “corporation” within the 

meaning of Section 4 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 

44.

2. Qualcomm has engaged, and continues to engage, in “commerce” and 

activities affecting commerce as that term is defined by Section 4 of the FTC Act, 15 

U.S.C. § 44.

3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 15 

U.S.C. §§ 45(a) and 53(b), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337(a), and 1345.

4. Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act prohibits “[u]nfair 

methods of competition.” 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); Order Granting FTC’s Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment, ECF No. 931 (“SJ Order”), at 10.

5. “Unfair methods of competition” under the FTC Act include violations of 

the Sherman Act. FTC v. Ind. Fed’n of Dentists, 476 U.S. 447, 454-55 (1986); FTC v. 

Cement Inst., 333 U.S. 683, 694 (1948); SJ Order, at 10.

6. “Unfair methods of competition” under the FTC Act also include conduct 

that, although not a violation of the letter of the Sherman Act, conflicts with the basic 

policies of the Sherman Act. FTC v. Brown Shoe Co., 384 U.S. 316, 321 (1966); E.I. du 

Pont de Nemours & Co. v. FTC, 729 F.2d 128, 136-37 (2d Cir. 1984); SJ Order, at 10.

7. Conduct may be an “unfair method of competition” if it is “collusive, 

coercive, predatory or exclusionary in character” or possesses other “indicia of 

oppressiveness.” E.I. du Pont de Nemours, 729 F.2d at 138-40; SJ Order, at 11. 

8. Under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, it is unlawful for a firm to 

“monopolize” a relevant market. 15 U.S.C. § 2; United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 60 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

F.3d 34, 50 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (en banc) (per curiam); Order Denying Motion to Dismiss, 

ECF No. 134 (“MTD Order”), at 18. 

9. A monopolization offense has two elements: (1) the possession of 

monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) anticompetitive conduct—“the willful 

acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development

as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.” Eastman 

Kodak Co. v. Image Tech. Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 481 (1992); Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 

50; MTD Order, at 18.

10. Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits “[e]very contract, combination ... 

or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce.” 15 U.S.C. § 1; Allied Orthopedic 

Appliances, Inc. v. Tyco Health Care Grp. LP, 592 F.3d 991, 996 (9th Cir. 2010); MTD 

Order, at 18.

11. To show a violation of Section 1, a plaintiff must establish (1) the 

existence of an agreement, i.e., concerted action; and (2) that the agreement was an 

unreasonable restraint of trade. See Aerotec Int’l, Inc. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 836 F.3d 

1171, 1178 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Am. Needle, Inc. v. Nat’l Football League, 560 U.S. 

183, 189-90 (2010)).

12. Under Section 1, a plaintiff may establish a prima facie case that an 

agreement is unreasonable by showing (1) that a defendant has market power in the 

relevant market; and (2) that the agreement tends to harm competition. See Bhan v. NME 

Hospitals, Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1413 (9th Cir. 1991); Realcomp II, Ltd. v. FTC, 635 F.3d 

815, 827 (6th Cir. 2010).

13. Monopoly power is “the power to control prices or exclude competition.” 

United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377, 391 (1956).

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 61 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

59

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14. Market or monopoly power may be established through circumstantial 

evidence, namely “a firm’s possession of a dominant share of a relevant market that is 

protected by entry barriers.” Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 51 (citing Rebel Oil Co. v. Atl. 

Richfield Co., 51 F.3d 1421, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)); see also Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 

114 F.3d 1467, 1475-76 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. 

Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012).

15. “Unlike Section 2 claims, Section 1 restraint of trade claims need not 

establish the threshold showing of monopoly control over a relevant market.” Amarel v. 

Connell, 102 F.3d 1494, 1522 (9th Cir. 1996); MTD Order, at 18. A lesser showing is 

required to establish market power for Section 1 purposes than to establish monopoly 

power for Section 2 purposes. See Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., Inc., 

504 U.S. 451, 481 (1992).

16. An antitrust market is comprised of a relevant geographic market and a 

relevant product market. See Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 324 

(1962).

17. The relevant geographic market in this case is worldwide.

18. The hypothetical monopolist test is a widely accepted methodology to 

define relevant antitrust markets. It is derived from Supreme Court precedent, adopted 

by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission in the Horizontal 

Merger Guidelines, and routinely applied by courts and economists in both merger and 

non-merger cases across many industries. See Saint Alphonsus Medical Center-Nampa 

Inc. v. St. Luke's Health Sys., Ltd., 778 F.3d 775, 784 (9th Cir. 2015); Theme 

Promotions, Inc. v. News Am. Mktg. FSI, 546 F.3d 991, 1002 (9th Cir. 2008); U.S. Dep’t 

of Justice & Fed. Trade Comm’n, Horizontal Merger Guidelines § 4.1.2 (2010).

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 62 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

60

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

19. The hypothetical monopolist test is a method of identifying reasonable 

substitutes for the product(s) in question. See Theme Promotions, 546 F.3d at 1002; 

Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., No. CV-00-20905 RMW, 2008 WL 73689, at 

*3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2008).

20. The hypothetical monopolist test asks whether a hypothetical monopolist 

of all products within a proposed market could profitably impose a small but significant 

non-transitory increase in price (“SSNIP”) in the proposed market. If enough purchasers 

would respond to a SSNIP by purchasing a product from outside the proposed market, 

making the SSNIP unprofitable, the proposed market definition is too narrow. See Saint 

Alphonsus Medical Center, 778 F.3d at 784; Hynix Semiconductor, 2008 WL 73689, 

at *3.

21. Applying the hypothetical monopolist test, a relevant antitrust product 

market for purposes of assessing Qualcomm’s conduct is modem chips with CDMA 2G 

or 3G capability. Modem chips without CDMA capability are not reasonable substitutes 

for CDMA modem chips and a hypothetical monopolist of all CDMA modem chips 

could profitably impose a SSNIP above competitive levels.

22. Applying the hypothetical monopolist test, a relevant antitrust product 

market for purposes of assessing Qualcomm’s conduct is premium LTE modem chips, 

i.e., chips with LTE capability deployed in premium-tier handsets. Non-premium LTE 

modem chips are not reasonable substitutes for premium LTE modem chips and a 

hypothetical monopolist of all premium LTE modem chips could profitably impose a 

SSNIP above competitive levels.

23. There is some overlap between the CDMA and premium LTE modem 

chip markets, but this overlap does not affect their treatment as separate antitrust 

markets.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 63 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

24. Qualcomm possessed monopoly power in the worldwide market for 

CDMA modem chips each year from 2006 through 2016. 

25. Qualcomm possessed monopoly power in the worldwide market for 

premium LTE modem chips each year from 2011 through 2016. 

26. Qualcomm possessed market power in the worldwide market for CDMA 

modem chips each year from 2006 through 2016.

27. Qualcomm possessed market power in the worldwide market for 

premium LTE modem chips each year from 2011 through 2016.

28. Qualcomm’s “no license-no chips” policy is effectuated through 

Qualcomm chip supply and patent license agreements with OEMs and supported by 

 Qualcomm has entered with OEMs. These 

agreements are concerted action under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. See, e.g., ZF 

Meritor, LLC v. Eaton Corp., 696 F.3d 254, 277 (3d Cir. 2012) (contracts with 

anticompetitive terms “essentially forced” by the defendant); MCM Partners v. 

Andrews-Bartlett & Assocs., 62 F.3d 967, 973-75 (7th Cir. 1995).

29. Qualcomm’s 2011 and 2013 agreements with Apple are concerted action 

under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. See Allied Orthopedic Appliances, 592 F.3d at 996; 

ZF Meritor, LLC v. Eaton Corp., 696 F.3d 254, 270, 277 (3d Cir. 2012).

30. Under the Sherman Act, conduct that “harm[s] the competitive process

and thereby harm[s] consumers” is anticompetitive. McWane, Inc. v. FTC, 783 F.3d 814, 

835-36 (11th Cir. 2015) (quoting Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 58); MTD Order, at 30.

31. When a defendant has engaged in multiple acts or practices that may be 

anticompetitive, a court must consider their interactions and combined effects. Free 

FreeHand Corp. v. Adobe Sys., Inc., 852 F. Supp. 2d 1171, 1180 (N.D. Cal. 2012) 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 64 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

62

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(citing City of Anaheim v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 955 F.2d 1373, 1376, 1378 (9th Cir. 

1992)); MTD Order, at 31.

32. A government plaintiff seeking injunctive relief in an antitrust case need 

not “reconstruct the hypothetical marketplace absent a defendant’s anticompetitive 

conduct,” but instead must show that the “defendant has engaged in anticompetitive 

conduct that ‘reasonably appear[s] capable of making a significant contribution to ... 

maintaining monopoly power.” Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 79 (quoting 3 Phillip E. Areeda & 

Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law ¶ 651c, at 78 (1996 ed.)); accord McWane, 783 F.3d 

at 833; United States v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc., 399 F.3d 181, 187 (3d Cir. 2005).

33. Conduct that raises a competitor’s costs or otherwise tends to impair the 

opportunities of competitors and either does not further competition on the merits or 

does so in an unnecessarily restrictive way is anticompetitive under the Sherman Act. 

See Cascade Health Solns. v. PeaceHealth, 515 F.3d 883, 894 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing 

Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585, 605 n. 32 (1985)); 

MTD Order, at 30.

34. Imposing a surcharge that raises the cost of using competitors’ products 

may be anticompetitive under the Sherman Act. See United Shoe Mach. Corp. v. United 

States, 258 U.S. 451, 456-57 (1922); Premier Elec. Constr. Co. v. Nat’l Elec. 

Contractors Ass’n, 814 F.2d 358, 368 (7th Cir. 1987); Caldera, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 

87 F. Supp. 2d 1244, 1249-50 (D. Utah 1999); MTD order, at 33-35. 

35. A firm with market or monopoly power may impair the opportunities of 

competitors by imposing costs on the competitors’ customers or by imposing costs 

directly on the competitors themselves. See N. Gregory Mankiw, Principles of 

Microeconomics 125, 156 (7th ed. 2014).

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 65 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

63

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

36. Qualcomm’s maintenance of a no license-no chips policy is 

anticompetitive conduct.

37.

38. Through its FRAND commitments to U.S.-based standard-setting 

organizations, Qualcomm has a pre-existing contractual duty to make SEP licenses 

available on FRAND terms to competing modem chip suppliers. SJ Order, at 25.

39. By refusing requests for licenses from modem chip suppliers, Qualcomm 

has breached its pre-existing contractual duty to make SEP licenses available on 

FRAND terms to competing modem chip suppliers.

40. Qualcomm’s refusal to make SEP licenses available to competitors in 

breach of its voluntary commitments to standard-setting organizations is anticompetitive 

conduct. By failing to comply with its FRAND commitments, it has altered a voluntary 

course of dealing with anticompetitive malice. See Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands 

Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585, 610 (1985); MetroNet Services Corp. v. Qwest Corp, 383 

F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 2004); MTD Order, at 41.

41. A contract that conditions discounts or rebates on a promise of 

exclusivity may be analyzed as a de facto exclusive dealing contract if its “practical 

effect” is “to prevent a ... buyer from using the products of a competitor of the ... 

seller.” Tampa Elec. Co. v. Nashville Coal Co., 365 U.S. 320, 326 (1961); ZF Meritor, 

LLC v. Eaton Corp., 696 F.3d 254, 270 (3d Cir. 2012); Pro Search Plus, LLC v. VFM 

Leonardo, Inc., 2013 WL 6229141, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2013); MTD Order, at 47.

42. Qualcomm’s 2011 and 2013 agreements with Apple are appropriately 

analyzed as de facto exclusive dealing agreements because their practical effect was to 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 66 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

64

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

prevent Apple from using premium LTE modem chips supplied by Qualcomm’s 

competitors.

43. An express or de facto exclusive dealing contract violates Section 1 of the 

Sherman Act when its “‘probable effect’ is to substantially lessen competition in the 

relevant market.” ZF Meritor, 696 F.3d at 268-69 (quoting Tampa Elec., 365 U.S. at 

327-29); Pro Search Plus, 2013 WL 6229141, at *5.

44. Whether an exclusive dealing contract has the probable effect of 

substantially lessening competition rests on a number of factors, including in particular 

whether the contract “foreclose[s] competition in a substantial share” of the relevant 

market. Courts have generally considered 40% to 50% of the relevant market a 

“substantial share.” Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 70; MTD Order, at 47.

45. Exclusive dealing by a monopolist may violate Section 2 of the Sherman 

Act even though the relevant contracts foreclose less than roughly 40% to 50% of the 

relevant market if those contracts “severely limit ... competition for the most important 

customers” that potential entrants “need[] to gain a foothold for effective competition.” 

E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., 637 F.3d 435, 452 (4th Cir. 2011); 

Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 70; MTD Order, at 47.

46. Through its 2011 and 2013 agreements with Apple, Qualcomm engaged 

in anticompetitive conduct. 

47. Qualcomm’s no license-no chips policy, its refusal to make licenses 

available to competing modem chip suppliers, 

 and its exclusive dealing with Apple, taken as 

a whole, have tended to harm competition and maintain a monopoly in markets for 

CDMA and premium LTE modem chips.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 67 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

65

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

48. Qualcomm has engaged in anticompetitive conduct that reasonably 

appears capable of making a significant contribution to maintaining its market and 

monopoly power and harming competition in markets for CDMA and premium LTE 

modem chips.

49. Qualcomm’s no license-no chips policy, its refusal to make licenses 

available to competing modem chip suppliers, 

, and its exclusive dealing with Apple are 

collusive, coercive, predatory, exclusionary, and oppressive in character.

50. Under Section 1 or Section 2 of the Sherman Act, or Section 5 of the FTC 

Act, if a plaintiff shows that the restraint or conduct challenged has or reasonably 

appears capable of having anticompetitive effects, then “the defendant must offer 

evidence of pro-competitive effects” resulting from the restraint or conduct. Bhan, 929 

F.2d at 1413; see also Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 59; Polygram Holding, Inc. v. FTC, 416 

F.3d 29, 36 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

51. Even if a cognizable pro-competitive justification exists, if a plaintiff 

shows that the restraint or conduct in question is not reasonably necessary to achieve the 

pro-competitive objective, then the justification does not save the restraint or conduct 

from condemnation. See Bhan, 929 F.2d at 1413; Phillip E. Areeda & Herbert 

Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law ¶ 1502, Wolter Kluwer (database updated Sept. 2018).

52. Even if a cognizable pro-competitive justification exists, if 

anticompetitive effects from the restraint or conduct in question outweigh any 

procompetitive benefits, then the restraint or conduct is condemned under the antitrust 

laws. See Bhan, 929 F.2d at 1413; Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 59.

53. Qualcomm’s no license-no chips policy, its refusal to make SEP licenses 

available to competing modem chip suppliers, 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 68 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

66

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

, and its exclusive dealing with Apple are not 

justified by any pro-competitive efficiency.

54. Qualcomm’s no license-no chips policy, its refusal to make SEP licenses 

available to competing modem chip suppliers, 

 and its exclusive dealing with Apple are not 

reasonably necessary to achieve any procompetitive efficiency.

55. The anticompetitive effects from Qualcomm’s no license-no chips policy, 

its refusal to make SEP licenses available to competing modem chip suppliers, 

, and its exclusive 

dealing with Apple outweigh any putative efficiencies proffered by Qualcomm.

56. Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), authorizes the Court to 

issue a permanent injunction and other equitable relief. FTC v. Evans Prods. Co., 775 

F.2d 1084, 1087 (9th Cir. 1985).

57. A permanent injunction is warranted where a defendant’s unlawful 

conduct is ongoing or there is a “cognizable danger of recurrent violation.” United States 

v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633 (1953); see also Evans Prods. Co., 775 F.2d at

1087.

58. Past unlawful conduct is “highly suggestive of the likelihood of future 

violations.” CFTC v. Yu, No. 12-CV-3921-YGR, 2012 WL 3283430, at *4 (N.D. Cal. 

Aug. 10, 2012) (quoting CFTC v. Hunt, 591 F.2d 1211, 1220 (7th Cir. 1979)).

59. Qualcomm’s policies of not supplying chips to customers that do not 

have a patent license, not making SEP licenses available to competing modem chip 

suppliers, and are 

ongoing.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 69 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

67

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

60. There is a “cognizable danger of recurrent violation.” Qualcomm 

engaged in anticompetitive conduct in the past and is well-positioned to engage in 

similar conduct in the future.

61. “The Supreme Court has explained that a remedies decree in an antitrust 

case must seek to ‘unfetter a market from anticompetitive conduct,’ to ‘terminate the 

illegal monopoly, deny to the defendant the fruits of its statutory violation, and ensure 

that there remain no practices likely to result in monopolization in the future.’” 

Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 103 (quoting Ford Motor Co., 405 U.S. 562, 577 (1972) and 

United States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 391 U.S. 244, 250 (1968)).

62. A permanent injunction in a government antitrust case is not limited to “a 

simple proscription against the precise conduct previously pursued.” Nat’l Soc’y of 

Prof’l Eng’rs v. United States, 435 U.S. 679, 698 (1978); 

63. “[T]hose ‘caught violating’ the FTC Act ‘must expect some fencing in.’” 

FTC v. Grant Connect, LLC, 763 F.3d 1094, 1105 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting FTC v. Nat’l 

Lead Co., 352 U.S. 419, 431 (1957)).

64. In a government antitrust case, “all doubts as to the remedy are to be 

resolved in [the government’s] favor.” United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 

366 U.S. 316, 334 (1961).

65. A permanent injunction and other equitable relief is necessary and 

appropriate to remedy the violations of law found to exist in this case.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 70 of 71
FTC’S PRETRIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00220-LHK-NMC

68

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Dated: December 6, 2018

Respectfully submitted,

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

 /s/ Jennifer Milici

Jennifer Milici

J. Alexander Ansaldo

Joseph R. Baker

Wesley G. Carson

Kent Cox

Elizabeth A. Gillen

Geoffrey M. Green

Nathaniel M. Hopkin

Mika Ikeda

Rajesh S. James

Philip J. Kehl

Daniel Matheson

Kenneth H. Merber

Aaron Ross

Connor Shively

Mark J. Woodward

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20580

(202) 326-2912; (202) 326-3496 (fax)

jmilici@ftc.gov

Attorneys for Federal Trade Commission

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 966 Filed 12/06/18 Page 71 of 71