Judge Koh rejects Qualcomm’s bid to introduce new evidence

Judge Koh has rejected Qualcomm’s bid to introduce new evidence related to Intel’s success with Apple and Qualcomm’s new 5G agreements.

We’re now only three weeks away from the Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm antitrust trial in the Northern District of California, and Judge Lucy H. Koh has again asserted her authority and demonstrated her unrelenting focus on the facts that really matter,” Florian Mueller writes for FOSS Paents. “On Thursday, she flatly rejected an 11th-hour attempt by Qualcomm to delay or derail the FTC’s push for injunctive relief (the FTC is seeking to ‘redress and prevent recurrence of Qualcomm’s conduct’) by introducing evidence more recent than March 30, 2018, and at the end of her sharp ruling told Qualcomm one more time that ‘[t]he January 2019 trial will address both liability and remedy.'”

“The fact that Intel’s deal with Apple is not new per se (though the scope of that partnership may have expanded lately) diminishes the probative value of anything that Intel and Apple may have done together, or may have decided to do together, since late March,” Mueller writes. “As for the 5G part, Judge Koh doesn’t mention Qualcomm’s deal with Samsung, but the fact that this modification of an agreement with the world’s largest smartphone maker (at least by some measure) occurred prior to the cutoff date also suggests that whatever other deals were struck in the second or third quarter of 2018 won’t present a fundamentally new situation. And it could be that Judge Koh already sees a certain likelihood of Qualcomm being ordered to renegotiate patent license agreements at the end of this. In that case, the probative value of such contracts might be zero.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Hopefully, when all of this is said, done, and appealed, Qualcomm’s unreasonable, illogical, and irrational licensing scam, which charges a percentage of the total cost of all components in the phone, even non-Qualcomm components, will finally end!

Judge Koh sets aside sanctions order against Apple in FTC v. Qualcomm antitrust case – February 8, 2018
Apple gets support from Lawyers for Civil Justice in fight against discovery sanctions – February 1, 2018
Apple sanctioned in Qualcomm FTC case for withholding documents – December 22, 2017
EU fines chipmaker Qualcomm $1.2 billion for paying Apple to shut out rivals’ chips – January 24, 2018
Apple countersues Qualcomm for patent infringement – November 29, 2017
Apple designing next-gen iPhones, iPads that would dump Qualcomm components – October 31, 2017
Qualcomm faces long odds in attempt to get ban of iPhone sales and manufacturing in China – October 17, 2017
Qualcomm files lawsuits seeking China iPhone ban, escalating Apple legal fight – October 13, 2017
Qualcomm fined record $773 million in Taiwan antitrust probe – October 11, 2017
Apple faces down Qualcomm, Ericsson over EU patent fees – October 2, 2017
Qualcomm loses two key rulings in its patent royalty fight with Apple – September 21, 2017
Apple’s A11 Bionic obliterates top chips from Qualcomm, Samsung and Huawei – September 18, 2017
U.S. judge rules Apple lawsuits against Qualcomm can proceed – September 8, 2017
Qualcomm CEO expects out of court settlement with Apple – July 18, 2017
Apple-Qualcomm legal dispute likely to be ‘long and ugly’ – July 7, 2017
Qualcomm wants court to block Apple from U.S. iPhone imports and sales – July 6, 2017
Judge rules U.S. FTC antitrust lawsuit against Qualcomm to proceed – June 27, 2017
Apple uses Supreme Court decision to escalate war against Qualcomm – June 20, 2017
Apple’s amended San Diego complaint against Qualcomm leaves no doubt: many billions at stake – June 20, 2017


  1. Despite studying this for years, on my own, and discussing it with my wife, who is an attorney, and does understand the law, I can’t get how Qualcomm gets around the patent exhaustion. This was settled in courts, including the Supreme Court, several years ago.

    So how do they charge companies that are not making parts, but buying them, license fees relating to the patents, and how do they get away with licensing bundles of SEPs, with non essential patents? None of this is allowable.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.