Qualcomm puts value of patents on line in first Apple jury trial | TribLIVE.com

Qualcomm puts value of patents on line in first Apple jury trial

Shoppers check out the iPhone X at an Apple store in Beijing, China. U.S. chipmaker Qualcomm says it’s won an order in a Chinese court banning some Apple phones in China as part of a long-running dispute over patents.

Qualcomm is putting the value of its patent portfolio on the line in a California courtroom in its hometown to try to make Apple pay for using technology the chipmaker credits for the iPhone’s commercial success.

It’s the first time a U.S. jury will have a say in the two-year, sprawling global battle between the tech giants. Qualcomm alleges that Apple infringed patents related to technology for graphics processing and battery power conservation, which the San Diego-based company says improve the efficiency and reduce the cost of smartphones.

A major damages award by jurors would help Qualcomm undermine Apple’s claims that the chipmaker overcharges for its patent portfolio and may give the iPhone and iPad maker an incentive to negotiate a comprehensive settlement to their dispute. Jury selection starts Monday in San Diego federal court and the trial is scheduled to take two weeks.

“Qualcomm could really use a win to bolster the view that its robust patent portfolio is entitled to protection,” said Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Tamlin Bason. But he added that, because Qualcomm is unlikely to get a court order banning sales of infringing iPhone models, the chipmaker may not gain much leverage against Apple if it wins the trial.

Even if it loses, Apple can shrug off virtually any damage award, according to Bason, but a verdict for the iPhone maker would weaken Qualcomm’s hand.

Qualcomm has lost billions of dollars in revenue after Apple, through its Asian manufacturers, stopped paying patent royalties in 2017. The chipmaker had been the exclusive supplier of cellular chipsets for the iPhone for five years, but a “truce” between the companies unraveled in 2016 and Apple switched to Intel Inc. for these chips. The chipmaker has accused Apple of instigating regulatory actions against it around the world and of lying to government officials.

Their fallout has spawned dozens of court cases on three continents, with neither side so far scoring a decisive victory. Courts in China and Germany in December banned sales of some iPhone models after finding that Apple infringed Qualcomm patents, but neither injunction covers Apple’s most recent iPhone models.

Those decisions haven’t forced Apple to settle its numerous disputes with Qualcomm even as the Cupertino, California-based company is facing slowing demand for its iconic phones. The chipmaker is also trying to get the U.S. International Trade Commission to ban imports of iPhones with infringing Intel chips, but a commission judge last year recommended against the request even though he agreed that one of Qualcomm’s patents in the case was infringed.

The two ITC cases — in so far as they theoretically still present a risk of an import ban for Apple — are among four cases that are most likely to produce a shift in the companies’ bargaining positions, Bason said. Another is a lawsuit Apple brought in January 2017 challenging Qualcomm’s licensing practices. That case is scheduled for trial next month with billions of dollars in damages at stake.

The fourth crucial case is the Federal Trade Commission’s antitrust lawsuit against Qualcomm in San Jose, California, that went to a nonjury trial in January. Qualcomm is awaiting a judge’s ruling on the agency’s allegations that it illegally used its position as the biggest provider of chips used in smartphones to extract billions of dollars in licensing fees.

Apple and its manufacturers are unlikely to settle with Qualcomm until they know how the FTC case will affect Qualcomm’s licensing practices, according to Bason.

The chipmaker’s strategy in the patent case headed for trial Monday is to demonstrate that its technology has a much broader reach than the iPhone maker has argued. Apple claims that Qualcomm uses its patents for basic mobile telecommunications functionality to demand royalties that far exceed the contribution this technology makes to Apple’s increasingly sophisticated products.

Qualcomm, which has 130,000 patents and patent applications, maintains that the whole industry benefits from its inventions beyond the standard-essential technology to connect to a telecom network. The company is using the patent litigation to try to prove that its other intellectual property contributes significantly to the iPhone.

“Qualcomm’s technologies enable the cellular ecosystem that allows smartphones to send and receive vast amounts of data and voice communications at rapid speeds, seamlessly and reliably, from anywhere within reach of a cellular network,” the company said in a 2017 court filing. “Qualcomm’s inventions are necessary for the entire cellular network to function, they are not limited to technologies in modem chipsets or even cell phones.”

Categories: Business | Technology
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.