China (PRC)

Martin Hu & Partners In-House Community

8F, Kerry Parkside Office,1155 Fang Dian Road, Shanghai 201204, P. R. China
Tel: (86) 21 50101666*990  / Fax: (86) 21 50101222

v14i8_Jur_chinaIn January 2017, Apple sued Qualcomm in Beijing Intellectual Property Court over the abuse of its dominant market position.

Apple alleged that Qualcomm abused its market dominance when licensing telecommunication standard-essential patents (SEPs) and selling baseband chipsets. Specifically, it complained that Qualcomm charges unfairly high royalties for licensing SEPs and sets unreasonably strict conditions for Apple to obtain the licence of SEPs; Qualcomm refuses to license SEPs to some SEP users; furthermore, Qualcomm restricts Apple to use exclusively the products/services it supplies or approves to use, etc. Therefore, Apple requested Qualcomm to compensate for its economic loss in the amount of Rmb1 billion. One week before this case, Apple also filed a US$1 billion lawsuit against Qualcomm in the US for the same reasons.

As one of the world’s biggest baseband chipsets manufacturers, Qualcomm owns numerous mobile communication SEPs and is in a dominant position in the mobile communication SEP markets and baseband chipsets markets of relevant countries. In fact, in 2015, Qualcomm received a large fine imposed by China National Development and Reform Commission for violation of Anti-Trust Law. Meanwhile, Qualcomm was also investigated, sued or punished for abuse of its dominant market position in other jurisdictions, including the US, South Korea and the EU.

These cases demonstrate that Qualcomm was punished or investigated in these countries for its worldwide business model, which, generally speaking, is to coerce or induce the handset makers to choose its baseband chipsets by means of bundling patent licensing into chipsets sales complemented by rebates or other monetary incentives, through using its dominant market position, and bundling patents, tie-in sales and forced cross-licence, etc.

This lawsuit brought by Apple is partly due to the fact that Qualcomm induced Apple to sign an exclusive agreement by granting rebates and because Apple provided its cooperation to the Korea Fair Trade Commission in its anti-trust investigation against Qualcomm. The dispute between these two large companies put Qualcomm into the spotlight again. It is so far reaching in terms of its impact on the industry that not only Qualcomm and Apple themselves, but also anti-trust enforcement authorities and even other baseband chipset or cell phone manufacturers in this industry may be brought into the case. Therefore, we are paying close attention to the progress of this case and will analyse the case from the perspective of facts and laws in the next article.








Related Articles by Firm
Further analysis on Apple’s lawsuit against Qualcomm
In our last article titled “Apple Sued Qualcomm in China, Qualcomm Is Suspected of Abusing Market Dominant Position Again?”, we listed the cases in which Qualcomm was investigated...
Didi and Uber China’s merger from an Anti-monopoly Law perspective
On August 1, 2016, which happened to be the eighth anniversary of the Anti-monopoly Law, Didi announced its merger with Uber China ...
Determining dominant position in the cinema industry
Award-winning Chinese movie director Feng Xiaogang hit the headlines recently when he got into an online flame war with Wang Sicong, whose father owns Wanda Cinema. Feng argued that his latest film, I am not Madame Bovary ...
Tetra Pak case clarifies ‘justifiable reasons’ in tying
After a five-year investigation, the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (“SAIC”) has recently imposed an administrative penalty on the affiliates of Tetra Pak Group (“Tetra Pak”) for its abuse of ...
Guidelines Promulgated to Facilitate Implementation of the Foreign NGO Law in China
The Ministry of Public Security issued guidelines for the registration of representative office of foreign NGOs.
Related Articles
Links between environmental destruction and corruption risk in Southeast Asia
Corporate investigators need only work in corruption and fraud cases in Southeast Asia for a short while before noticing a correlation as clear as it is unsurprising ...
Right to privacy and data protection in India
The concept of data protection and privacy has not been addressed in any exclusive comprehensive legislation in India ...
INDONESIA: The risk of government force majeure under PPA
The electricity industry is known to be a complicated but important industry, where external factors that are beyond the control of the parties involved can cause problems to the progress and/or cost of the projects.
Related Articles by Jurisdiction
Anti-trust risks in group transaction (III)
In the last issue we mainly focused on practices where participants (Participants) to group transactions act as sellers, including purchase volume threshold, exclusive ...
Latest Articles
Benchmarking the in-house team’s evolution
Lawyers are increasingly expected to be much more actively involved in risk management, technology, strategy and project management.
Berwin Leighton Paisner and Bryan Cave in talks to merge
The two firms have confirmed they are in discussions about combining to create a new, fully integrated, global law firm ...
Links between environmental destruction and corruption risk in Southeast Asia
Corporate investigators need only work in corruption and fraud cases in Southeast Asia for a short while before noticing a correlation as clear as it is unsurprising ...