Intel tells ITC that Qualcomm is trying to perpetuate an unlawful monopoly with Apple 337 complaint

By Gene Quinn
July 25, 2017

Last week Intel filed a Public Interest Statement In the Matter of Certain Mobile Electronic Devices and Radio Frequency and Processing Components Thereof, Docket No. 3235. In short, this was Intel’s response for the International Trade Commission’s solicitation for public comments on Qualcomm’s filing of July 7, 2017, charging Apple with violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337). Qualcomm’s complaint alleges Apple violated Section 337 by importing and then selling certain mobile electronic devices and radio frequency and processing components. The Qualcomm complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, a cease and desist order, and impose a bond upon respondents’ alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).

Not surprisingly, Intel objects to the ITC taking action on Qualcomm’s complaint, and alleges that Qualcomm is attempting to perpetuate an unlawful monopoly. The Intel Statement reads in part:

Intel is Qualcomm’s only remaining competitor in the merchant market for premium LTE baseband processor modems (“modems”). Intel has invested billions of dollars to develop next-generation advanced modems and technologies to improve the performance and functionality of modern smartphones and cellular communications. Qualcomm now seeks exclusion of allegedly infringing Apple mobile electronic products that include a modem made by Intel, so that they can be “replace[d]” by allegedly infringing Apple products that “use a Qualcomm brand baseband processor modem,” Complainant’s Initial Statement on the Public Interest at 4. Thus, Qualcomm did not initiate this investigation to stop the alleged infringement of its patent rights; rather, its complaint is a transparent effort to stave off lawful competition from Qualcomm’s only remaining rival. This twisted use of the Commission’s process is just the latest in a long line of anticompetitive strategies that Qualcomm has used to quash incipient and potential competitors and avoid competition on the merits. And although those strategies have sometimes been subtle or complex, Qualcomm’s latest complaint could not be more blatant in its anticompetitive aims.

Like Qualcomm’s other anticompetitive conduct, an exclusion order would cause significant harm to the public interest—and, specifically, to the interests identified in the statutory public-interest factors in Section 337(d)(1) of the Tariff Act. See 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(1). The vital public interest in restraining Qualcomm from shutting Intel out of the market for premium LTE modems led the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), after an extended investigation, to bring an action in district court to stop Qualcomm’s anticompetitive conduct. See Complaint, FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 5:17-cv-220 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2017). The allegations of the FTC’s Complaint are striking and unmistakable—and fully consistent with Intel’s experience as a target of Qualcomm’s anticompetitive conduct.

If the Commission entertains Qualcomm’s complaint, it should do so with full awareness of Qualcomm’s abusive practices and the risks to the public interest from the exclusion order Qualcomm seeks. Accordingly, if the Commission elects to institute an investigation, Intel respectfully requests that the Commission delegate the public-interest question to an ALJ for development of an evidentiary record that takes the full measure of Qualcomm’s long history of anticompetitive conduct and the strong public interest in refusing an exclusion order here.

Intel goes on to later say:

The Commission should make no mistake: Qualcomm’s Complaint attempts to accomplish something quite different from the ordinary vindication of patent rights. Qualcomm’s goal is not to exclude supposedly infringing products from the United States. Instead, its primary goal is to exclude Intel modems from the United States, while giving free passage to allegedly infringing Apple products that incorporate a Qualcomm modem.

Intel’s claims are interesting, to say the least. If you actually look at the complaint filed by Qualcomm there is no admission, as Intel would have you believe, that infringing products would still be allowed entry into the U.S. just with a Qualcomm processor modem. Qualcomm is very upfront about what they are requesting, however. They are requesting the exclusion of products because those products do not incorporate a Qualcomm processor modem, but that is because Qualcomm owns the patents the cover that component so without using a Qualcomm processor modem there is patent infringement.

Intel does seem to be correct about one thing, however. Qualcomm’s goal is not to exclude Apple products from the United States, but rather just to exclude Apple products that fail to incorporate Qualcomm brand baseband processor modems.

As the Qualcomm complaint explains: “Infringement by use of non-Qualcomm brand baseband processor modems is purely a matter of choice on the part of Apple.”

The Author

Gene Quinn

Gene Quinn is a Patent Attorney and Editor and founder of IPWatchdog.com. Gene is also a principal lecturer in the PLI Patent Bar Review Course and an attorney with Widerman Malek. Gene’s specialty is in the area of strategic patent consulting, patent application drafting and patent prosecution. He consults with attorneys facing peculiar procedural issues at the Patent Office, advises investors and executives on patent law changes and pending litigation matters, and works with start-up businesses throughout the United States and around the world, primarily dealing with software and computer related innovations. is admitted to practice law in New Hampshire, is a Registered Patent Attorney and is also admitted to practice before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. CLICK HERE to send Gene a message.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently 3 Comments comments.

  1. Tesia Thomas July 25, 2017 9:05 am

    Since the Software Cartel is such great friends, they should PTAB each other to make sure they have solid, high quality patents.

  2. Tesia Thomas July 25, 2017 9:10 am

    Friends don’t let friends have poorly examined US patents.

  3. Eric Berend July 26, 2017 10:39 am

    Intel is one of the most ruthless, cavalier, devious companies in the world.

    This is extremely rich, layered with at least two levels of blatant hypocrisy: first, it was Intel that had six of the ‘G8’ countries impose consent decrees upon their business and its practices, even at the height of the “Battering Ram Ballmer” tide of complaints against Microsoft*; and second, this comes from the very company that created the “patent troll” pejorative.

    Any IT pro with over 20 years experience worth his/her salt, knows these facts.

    * – for those whose experience is limited to the Brave New World of the ‘Google Era’: once upon a time, it was Microsoft that was the small computer industry’s scourge and main candidate for IT industry ‘Chief Villain’. The “OS wars” of the 1980’s were won not upon technical merit – oh, no! File format “compatibility” ‘gotcha’ gimmicks, FUD marketing and illegal under-the-table anti-competitive PC maker and retailer agreements; were what put M$oft’s competitors away. That – and M$oft’s sheer good luck in acquiring a company with a brilliant programmer who made it possible for 32-bit Windows to work with 16-bit Windows files. After that, M$oft was able to screw its ‘big brother’ partner, IBM; that had given M$oft so much of its legitimacy in the eyes of the business world in general.

    True history in IT – and most professionals are still unaware of the whole “big picture”. Technological development in modern times, does not change much over recent time. Power mongers like the criminal plunderer Steve Ballmer, usually end up dictating the actual utilization and deployments of technologies invented by others. The current scourge against inventors, is simply yet another chapter in the savage, sociopathic pirates’ plundering exploits.