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
E: [email protected][email protected]

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
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
India update from Clasis Law
Including briefings on the national food processing policy, projects and energy, and intellectual property.
Key new provisions for power purchase agreements
On January 23, 2017, Indonesia’s Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources introduced a regulation that limits room for negotiation and risk allocation in power purchase agreements (PPAs)....
Dollar-denominated securities in relation to Corporation Code’s provisions on capital
The Philippines Stock Exchange (PSE) issued rules on December 2, 2016 governing the listing, trading and settlement of US dollar-denominated securities (DDS)....
Related Articles by Jurisdiction
Shanghai clarifies labour dispatch rules
The Shanghai Municipal Human Resources and Social Insurance Bureau and Shanghai Superior People’s Court jointly issued the Meeting Minutes on Application of Law on Labour Dispatch on 31 December 2014.
Intellectual Property Special Report
In the October issue of Asian-Counsel, we investigate the reasons behind the PRC’s commitment to strengthening its IP regime, and discuss why companies around the globe must stay on top of developments in China. We also hear why Asian ...
Latest Articles
India update from Clasis Law
Including briefings on the national food processing policy, projects and energy, and intellectual property.
Linklaters to join Shanghai FTZ crowd
A 'best friends' deal with newly created firm Zhao Sheng will make it the latest international firm with a presence in the free-trade zone.