On September 27, 2018, the District Court ruled that this case could continue as a class action. Qualcomm appealed the District Court`s decision to certify a class in the Ninth District. The Ninth Circuit heard a hearing on Qualcomm`s appeal and subsequently revoked the group`s certification and sent it back to district court for a new hearing. On June 10, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint that updates their claims and the composition of the class. The second amended complaint is filed solely on behalf of California consumers and makes only California claims. Qualcomm`s request to dismiss the amended second trial is currently pending in district court. The first class action lawsuit in this case was filed on January 23, 2017. 4. In May 2017, the Court issued an order appointing Sjunde AP-Fonden (“AP7”) and Metzler Asset Management GmbH (“Metzler”) as lead plaintiffs and approving their selection of BLB&G and Motley Rice as lead counsel for the group. On July 3, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated securities violation class action lawsuit (the “Complaint”). The dispute revolves around a Which? allege that mobile phone company Qualcomm violated competition law, thereby inflating smartphone manufacturers` licensing fees for Qualcomm`s technology, resulting in higher prices for customers.
Under California`s conflict of laws rules, a class action plaintiff has the burden of proving that each class member`s claims have “significant contact or accumulation of contacts” with the state. But the other party can prove that another state`s law should apply despite these contacts if it finds that the interests of other states outweigh California`s interests. On February 23, Qualcomm sued Truong Hoang. San Jose-based Hoang joined Qualcomm in March 2021, just as Qualcomm completed its acquisition of Nuvia, a chip designer that develops high-performance processors. The legal troubles for the San Diego-based company began in 2015 when Qualcomm faced two EU antitrust lawsuits for trying to oust competitors (including British phone software maker Icera) from the 3G industry between mid-2009 and mid-2011. Norton Rose Fulbright (NRF) has been appointed to a revamped legal team for Qualcomm as it challenges a class action lawsuit filed by British consumer organisation Which? Defends. The Ninth Circuit decision in FTC v. Qualcomm, which rescinded an injunction prohibiting Qualcomm`s “core business practices” because its conduct was lawful and not anti-competitive, was based on the “principle” that “antitrust laws, including the Sherman Act, were enacted to protect competition” and that harm to consumers “outside relevant markets” is outside the scope of antitrust law. As alleged in the complaint, this lawsuit relates to Qualcomm`s false claim that it licensed its standard-essential patents to the entire wireless industry on a non-discriminatory basis. Instead of sticking to this narrative — which it repeatedly made to industry participants, standards bodies, and investors — Qualcomm and its senior executives instead decided to exploit the company`s position as the owner of industry-standard essential patents to stifle competition, drive competitors out of business, and receive overcompetitive royalties. To that end, in 2008, prior to the class period, Qualcomm and its senior executives changed the company`s established licensing policies, denied licensing for standard essential patents to competing chipmakers, and distributed licensing facilities to handset makers who agreed to purchase Qualcomm`s chipsets in large part or exclusively. These undisclosed and highly proprietary practices have succeeded: In just seven years after the undisclosed change in its licensing policy, Qualcomm`s revenue from chipset sales tripled by about $10 billion, and virtually all of its competitors were defeated.
“We believe Qualcomm`s practices are anti-competitive and have taken around £480 million out of UK consumers` pockets so far – this has to stop,” said Anabel Hoult, chief executive of Which?. “We are sending a clear warning that if companies like Qualcomm engage in manipulative practices that harm consumers, which ones? is ready to take action. Which one says that the higher costs will ultimately be passed on to consumers and which ones? Will he try to win them back under the group plan, which is which? submit a claim for damages on behalf of the UK consumers concerned. This is a securities fraud lawsuit brought on behalf of all purchasers of common stock of Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm” or the “Company”) from February 1, 2012 to January 20, 2017 inclusive (the “Escrow Period”) making claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Qualcomm and certain of its officers. In both cases, filed in federal court in San Diego, the company said it did not know to what extent its confidential information may have been disclosed to others. He is asking the court to approve inspections of former employees` computers, email accounts, personal storage drives and cloud storage accounts to determine what was taken and where it was transferred. He is also seeking injunction and unspecified damages. However, competition authorities on three continents have recently accused or held Qualcomm liable for violating competition law due to its blanket refusal to license its standard-essential patents to competing chipmakers and other unfair and discriminatory behavior. One such regulator, the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC), recently imposed a record fine of nearly $1 billion and issued a detailed and damning order condemning Qualcomm`s multi-year efforts to eliminate competition. And another regulator, the U.S. Fair Trade Commission (“FTC”), recently took a similar enforcement action to end Qualcomm`s anti-competitive licensing model. Qualcomm`s investors, including lead plaintiffs and the investor class, have also suffered.
These revelations about Qualcomm`s clearly anti-competitive practices dealt a swift and severe blow to the value of the company`s shares, causing Qualcomm`s share price to fall 33% during the price period, wiping out more than $32 billion in shareholder value.