Qualcomm to Pursue iPhone Import Ban in United States in Ongoing Apple Feud

The legal battle between Qualcomm and Apple is heating up, with Qualcomm planning to seek an import ban that would prevent iPhones from being able to enter the United States, reports Bloomberg. Qualcomm is reportedly "incensed" over Apple's decision to stop paying licensing fees during the dispute and is aiming to retaliate.

Qualcomm is preparing to ask the International Trade Commission to stop the iPhone, which is built in Asia, from entering the country, threatening to block Apple's iconic product from the American market in advance of its anticipated new model this fall, according to the person, who asked not to be identified because the discussions are private.

Qualcomm and Apple have been facing off in an ongoing legal dispute since January that started when the FTC complained that Qualcomm had engaged in anticompetitive patent licensing practices. Shortly after the FTC complaint, Apple sued Qualcomm, accusing the company of charging unfair royalties for "technologies they have nothing to do with" and refusing to pay quarterly rebates.

qualcomm logo
In April, Qualcomm countersued, accusing Apple of breaching licensing agreements, making false statements, and encouraging regulatory attacks against Qualcomm's business in multiple countries. Qualcomm claims Apple "could not have built the incredible iPhone franchise" without relying on Qualcomm's "fundamental cellular technologies."

The lawsuit heated up in late April when Apple stopped making royalty payments to Qualcomm and confirmed it would not continue payments until a court figured out the total amount that was owed. Apple CEO Tim Cook yesterday reiterated that Apple could not pay the fees without the court deciding what amount should be paid due to Qualcomm's refusal to license its patents under FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) terms.

In terms of why we're withholding payments, you can't pay something when there's a dispute about how much is needed to be paid. There hasn't been a meeting of the minds there. At this point, we need the courts to decide that. [...]

The reason we are pursuing this is that Qualcomm is trying to charge Apple a percentage of the total of the iPhone value, but their modems/patented technologies are one small part of the iPhone. We don't think that's right, so we're taking a principle stand on it. We strongly believe we're in the right, as they probably think they are.

The United States International Trade Commission could potentially put a stop to iPhone shipments to the United States should the ITC side with Qualcomm. ITC cases are processed more quickly than cases in the federal courts, where this lawsuit will likely be drawn out for years to come.

Popular Stories

iPhone SE 4 Vertical Camera Feature

iPhone SE 4 Production Will Reportedly Begin Ramping Up in October

Tuesday July 23, 2024 2:00 pm PDT by
Following nearly two years of rumors about a fourth-generation iPhone SE, The Information today reported that Apple suppliers are finally planning to begin ramping up mass production of the device in October of this year. If accurate, that timeframe would mean that the next iPhone SE would not be announced alongside the iPhone 16 series in September, as expected. Instead, the report...
iPhone 17 Plus Feature

iPhone 17 Lineup Specs Detail Display Upgrade and New High-End Model

Monday July 22, 2024 4:33 am PDT by
Key details about the overall specifications of the iPhone 17 lineup have been shared by the leaker known as "Ice Universe," clarifying several important aspects of next year's devices. Reports in recent months have converged in agreement that Apple will discontinue the "Plus" iPhone model in 2025 while introducing an all-new iPhone 17 "Slim" model as an even more high-end option sitting...
Generic iPhone 17 Feature With Full Width Dynamic Island

Kuo: Ultra-Thin iPhone 17 to Feature A19 Chip, Single Rear Camera, Semi-Titanium Frame, and More

Wednesday July 24, 2024 9:06 am PDT by
Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo today shared alleged specifications for a new ultra-thin iPhone 17 model rumored to launch next year. Kuo expects the device to be equipped with a 6.6-inch display with a current-size Dynamic Island, a standard A19 chip rather than an A19 Pro chip, a single rear camera, and an Apple-designed 5G chip. He also expects the device to have a...
iPhone 16 Pro Sizes Feature

iPhone 16 Series Is Less Than Two Months Away: Everything We Know

Thursday July 25, 2024 5:43 am PDT by
Apple typically releases its new iPhone series around mid-September, which means we are about two months out from the launch of the iPhone 16. Like the iPhone 15 series, this year's lineup is expected to stick with four models – iPhone 16, iPhone 16 Plus, iPhone 16 Pro, and iPhone 16 Pro Max – although there are plenty of design differences and new features to take into account. To bring ...
icloud private relay outage

iCloud Private Relay Experiencing Outage

Thursday July 25, 2024 3:18 pm PDT by
Apple’s iCloud Private Relay service is down for some users, according to Apple’s System Status page. Apple says that the iCloud Private Relay service may be slow or unavailable. The outage started at 2:34 p.m. Eastern Time, but it does not appear to be affecting all iCloud users. Some impacted users are unable to browse the web without turning iCloud Private Relay off, while others are...

Top Rated Comments

Andres Cantu Avatar
94 months ago
Good luck with getting the iPhone banned in the U.S.
Score: 27 Votes (Like | Disagree)
newyorksole Avatar
94 months ago
Lolol I'm no expert in this matter, but there's no wayyyy any company is gonna stop Apple from importing iPhones.

Apple has way too many legal resources for that to even get close to happening.
Score: 13 Votes (Like | Disagree)
kdarling Avatar
94 months ago
The last time Apple tried to get out of paying for a FRAND patent because they claimed the price was too high, the ITC banned their devices from import:

ITC Rules Apple Infringed on Samsung Patents, Issues Cease and Desist Order for Older Apple Devices - MacRumors 2013 ('https://www.macrumors.com/2013/06/04/itc-rules-apple-infringed-on-samsung-patents-issues-cease-and-desist-order-for-older-apple-devices/')

And that was with Samsung reportedly asking for "a licensing fee of 2.4% per device sold, which Apple found to be unreasonable." The ITC ruled 1) that royalties based on price were standard with cellular patents, and that 2) it was just an initial offer, which Apple was expected to negotiate down.

Fortunately for Apple, the Obama administration stepped in and vetoed the import ban, saying that a ban could not used for a FRAND situation... unless the licensee continued to avoid actual negotiating.

Not so sure Trump would do the same, if the ITC rules in a similar manner.

Score: 11 Votes (Like | Disagree)
nuckinfutz Avatar
94 months ago
Good Deity this is getting out of hand.
Score: 8 Votes (Like | Disagree)
konqerror Avatar
94 months ago
Good luck with getting the iPhone banned in the U.S.
It did happen. Broadcom got all of Qualcomm's chips banned for import by the ITC during their patent dispute. This meant no phones at all for Verizon and Sprint.

Carriers had to pay license fees directly to Broadcom to get around it. Major factor in Qualcomm's eventual settlement.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2007/08/06/u-s-upholds-import-ban-on-qualcomm-chips/

Because Apple doesn't participate in wireless standards, they have no IP to fight back, so I'd venture to guess that they're in a much weaker position than Qualcomm.
Score: 8 Votes (Like | Disagree)
macfacts Avatar
94 months ago
... If Apple charge $1 for an iPhone, Qualcomm gets, maybe $0.01? If they charge $1,000 why should Qualcomm get $10? ...
Can't have it both ways. When Apple sued Samsung for rounded corners, Apple got a percentage of the entire cost of Samsung's phones sold. Apple didnt just ask for the cost of the plastic phone shell.
[doublepost=1493859841][/doublepost]
no one said it was.
This news story is saying Apple has stopped payments. That sounds like free to me.
Score: 6 Votes (Like | Disagree)