- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Intel alleges Qualcomm strategy forced it out of modem chip market
[ By Kavita Krishnan ]Intel Corp filed a suit with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the United States (US) where Qualcomm is seeking to overturn a sweeping antitrust decision against it after losing a lawsuit by the US Federal Trade Commission. The appeal proceedings are expected to begin in January 2020.Qualcomm is an American multinational semiconductor and telecommunications...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Intel Corp filed a suit with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the United States (US) where Qualcomm is seeking to overturn a sweeping antitrust decision against it after losing a lawsuit by the US Federal Trade Commission. The appeal proceedings are expected to begin in January 2020.
Qualcomm is an American multinational semiconductor and telecommunications equipment company that designs and markets wireless telecommunications products and services.
In the Court documents, Intel has blamed former rival Qualcomm for anticompetitive business practices that caused it to lose billions of dollars and forced the sale of its smart-phone modem chip business to Apple Inc at a multi-billion dollar loss.
Intel was Qualcomm’s chief rival in modem chips, and sold the components to Apple for the iPhone. Apple however, signed a chip supply agreement with Qualcomm after they settled a major legal battle in May. Briefly later Intel announced the sale of its modem chip business to Apple Inc.
Intel said that it was forced out of the market because of Qualcomm’s patent licensing practices and supported the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) case against Qualcomm.
Qualcomm has denied the FTC’s accusations, and other parts of the US government have urged the Appeals Court to pause enforcement of the FTC ruling against it.