Qualcomm Wants Apple to Pay $31 Million in Damages in Patent Battle

Qualcomm today told a San Diego jury that it wants Apple to pay $31 million in damages for patent infringement violations, which is allegedly equivalent to $1.40 per infringing iPhone.

The new information comes from CNET, which has been covering the Qualcomm vs. Apple patent trial that's in court this week.


$1.40 per ‌iPhone‌ and a total of $31 million in damages suggests that Qualcomm believes only 22 million iPhones are infringing on its technology. Qualcomm came up with that total with the help of economist Patrick Kennedy, who took the stand as an expert witness for Qualcomm today. Kennedy calculated the figure based on iPhones sold from July 2017 on that used chips by Intel. Apple started using a mix of chips from both Intel and Qualcomm in the ‌iPhone‌ 7, and later transitioned to all Intel chips due to the legal troubles with Qualcomm.

Qualcomm and Apple are fighting over three patents that Qualcomm says Apple infringed on with its iPhones. As CNET describes, one of the patents covers a method for allowing a smartphone to quickly connect to the internet once turned on, while another covers graphics processing and battery life. The third patent Apple is accused of violating allows apps to download data more easily by directing traffic between the apps processor and modem.

Apple just last quarter earned more than $20 billion in profit, so $31 million in damages wouldn't be a hit to the company's bottom line. If Qualcomm wins the trial, though, its claim that its technology is at the "heart of every ‌iPhone‌" would be more credible.

Apple and Qualcomm have been fighting since January 2017, when Apple sued Qualcomm for $1 billion in unpaid royalty fees. Qualcomm countersued, and since then, the two companies have levied multiple lawsuits against one another. Two of Qualcomm's lawsuits have resulted in import bans in Germany and China, both of which Apple was able to skirt with hardware and software updates.

The current patent trial between Apple and Qualcomm will last through next week.

Top Rated Comments

(View all)
Avatar
14 months ago
Oh Qualcomm, you're really setting yourself up for disaster. Do you know why Apple is opening a tech campus here in San Diego with 1,200+ employees? It's so they can poach your best and brightest away from you.
Score: 9 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Avatar
14 months ago
I like to imagine the collective sigh of MacRumors' writers whenever more news of patent litigation comes in. Then they all gather around and draw straws to see who has to type it up.


Did… did I just write and animate MacRumors fan fiction? :eek:

And, yes, that's Tim Hardwick, [USER=949502]@earthTOmitchel[/USER], and [USER=771561]@jclo[/USER] all on [USER=696996]@Joe Rossignol[/USER]'s body. I got lazy.

Score: 8 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Avatar
14 months ago

I would say PAY and move on. Indeed lawyers are probably more expensive. These court actions will go at the expense of going forward.


I'd be inclined to pay too. But it would create legal precedents. That's all Apple would be worried about.
Score: 5 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Avatar
14 months ago

You guys are missing the big picture here in all of this. A few have tried to point it out, the 31 million is nothing, yes, we all know that. It’s what it means for them if they roll over on this and accept that. Sets a precedent for the rest of their ongoing battles going forward with Qualcomm

Nobody missed it. That got pointed out in several posts already.
Score: 4 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Avatar
14 months ago

Doesn't make sense to me. If Apple used Intel chips, and it's the chips that violate the patent, then shouldn't they be suing Intel?


Intel could, existing contractual commitments to Intel aside, sue Intel for infringement. In theory it could also sue users of infringing iPhones. If the iPhones infringe the patents in question, and no license has been granted (to, e.g., Intel or Apple), then users of those iPhones are infringing those patents as well. Qualcomm, of course, isn't going to sue iPhone users.

But Qualcomm doesn't want to sue Intel either because, among other reasons, it wants to be able to collect royalties based on the value of end devices rather than, e.g., on the value of chips. A reasonable royalty rate applied to the value of chips would net Qualcomm far less than it's been forcing device makers to pay. It's desperately trying to cling to a model that no longer makes sense and which, likely, is already effectively lost.

Here's the long and short of the business model Qualcomm has been trying to hold onto. There was a time when it perhaps made sense to base cellular technology licensing on the value of the devices which used it. The cellular technology is what those devices were. There wasn't much else noteworthy to them. They were pieces of plastic with buttons, crude displays, microphones, speakers, etcetera - mostly basic stuff that had been around forever. Cell phones were, fundamentally, the cellular technology inside of them. There wasn't much else interesting or useful about them, and the other aspects of them were there to make use of the cellular technology.

That changed over time, but fairly quickly after - and in part due to - the iPhone. The smartphone consumed the cellular technology which it made use of. The cellular technology became just one aspect of what a modern phone was. There were now many other interesting - and technologically advanced - parts to a phone. Hoping to cash in on the increased value and role of smartphones, and seeking to prevent the loss of the revenue which had rightfully for a time come from the proliferation of basic cell phones, some industry participants - to include Qualcomm - tried hard to hold onto the device-level royalty base model which had made sense before but which now really didn't. Simply put, modems were now just parts of phones rather than, meaningfully, what phones were.

Those industry participants used a number of tactics to try to hold onto the outdated model. Things moved so quickly that existing contracts served the purpose to some extent. But Qualcomm at least did a number of other things (which have been discussed at length elsewhere) to force industry participants to continue to agree to the outdated model. At the same time, some industry participants likely went along happily. Those making inexpensive smartphones benefited from the model, as did the cellular licensors - at least those like Qualcomm with the leverage needed to impose higher (actual as opposed to published) royalty rates. But continuing with the outdated model wasn't the choice of some industry participants. They went along because they had to.

Being able to extend the model a little longer, Qualcomm could then point and say - look, this is industry standard practice (at least when it came to the royalty base aspect). It was industry standard not because it still made sense, but because it once made sense with a very different class of products which - rather than being displaced by - quickly evolved into a new class of products. And it was industry standard in part because Qualcomm was in a position - thanks in part to its improper tactics - to unilaterally impose it.

Anyway... Qualcomm is suing Apple rather than Intel because it still wants to hold onto device-level royalty bases.
[doublepost=1552223927][/doublepost]

Aside from the scale and scope of the rocks that each company is throwing at each other is this: Apple is legendary for really putting the screws to its suppliers, often unfairly. That's what leverage will do. In this case, they don't have that kind of leverage.


In this case, it was a matter of Qualcomm putting the screws to an entire industry - and using illegal and contract-violative tactics to do so. Apple isn't the only industry participant that believes Qualcomm's behavior has been improper. And, of course, a number of regulatory bodies have concluded the same.

It was Qualcomm which had the leverage, and it wielded that leverage, arguably illegally, to great effect. Qualcomm's leverage has, for a number of reasons, been greatly reduced though. Now it's, e.g., Apple which has the leverage. That's what this suit is about. It's Qualcomm desperately seeking any bit of leverage it can find in hopes of eventually being able to negotiate slightly better terms.
[doublepost=1552224067][/doublepost]

What you just stated is the reason the FTC brought a suit against Qualcomm for anti-competitive practices. The reason these fees are being assessed against the Intel phones is because Qualcomm's policy has been that you can't license their patents unless you buy their hardware. Since Apple was still using Qualcomm's licensed technologies with phones that they weren't paying Qualcomm to put chips in, they feel entitled to extra money to offset the "loss" in profits by not being the chipset provider for those devices.

Legally speaking, the practice of tie-in purchases is monopolistic which is forbidden by anti-trust laws in the US. Hence the FTC's suit. I find it interesting, therefore, that they are so boldly asserting a right to EXTRA royalties on these Intel devices. To me, this is a flagrant admission of serious anti-competitive practices and I am starting to side more and more with Apple.


To be clear, the FTC and other parties allege the reverse: That Qualcomm wouldn't sell someone chips - to include chips it effectively had a monopoly on - unless they agreed to Qualcomm's licensing terms (and not just with regard to the chips they bought from Qualcomm).
[doublepost=1552224393][/doublepost]

For Pete's sake Apple, pay Qualcomm and get some decent modems back in your damn phones! It's a pittance for you and I'm paying $1000 per phone for a vastly inferior setup from Intel. My Verizon iPhone 6 with had better reception than my iPhone Xs. This is going to magnified when you move to 5G and Qualcomm is the international leader


That's cheap compared to losing customers due to inferior Intel radios.


It's unfortunate that, e.g., Intel was behind Qualcomm with regard to certain kinds of modems. But that was in part due to the illegal and/or contract-violative tactics Qualcomm had employed. Qualcomm was intentionally stifling competition. At some point, parties with the power to do so needed to step up and try to disrupt Qualcomm's stranglehold on the industry.

Apple, among others, did that. It meant taking some pain in the short-term. It was going to take a while to get certain Intel chips to be competitive with certain Qualcomm chips. But there was no way around that, other than to continue to let Qualcomm do what it had been doing - while the industry in general, and chip competition in particular, suffered. Going forward chip competition, and the industry in general, should benefit.

Also, as others have pointed out... Apple paying Qualcomm $31 million wouldn't resolve the broader dispute between Apple and Qualcomm. This case is just a bit of a sideshow. It was filed at the same time as an ITC action, and as part of Qualcomm's attempts to find some leverage against Apple when it comes to negotiating a resolution of the broader dispute. But of the two cases - this district court case and the ITC case - the ITC case was likely the more important. If Qualcomm could have somehow gotten an exclusion order from the ITC (which it could, in theory, still get), that might have mattered some. This district court case is more about getting a win that Qualcomm could publicly point to - see, Apple is infringing our patents. The money doesn't much matter.
Score: 4 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Avatar
14 months ago
Seems tiny by Apple standards. Probably less than court fees for this endless case.
Score: 3 Votes (Like | Disagree)

Top Stories

Seemingly Unreleased Version of Logic Pro X With Live Loops Appears on Apple's Education Site [Updated]

Sunday March 29, 2020 7:23 am PDT by Hartley Charlton
Update: Apple has replaced the Logic Pro X image with an older version. Original story follows. A seemingly unreleased version of Logic Pro X has appeared on Apple's education site, as spotted by a Reddit user. The image from Apple's education products page shows a 16-inch MacBook Pro running Logic Pro X, but with a familiar interface that looks extremely similar to GarageBand's Live Loops ...

Zoom Updates iOS App to Stop Sending Data to Facebook

Friday March 27, 2020 5:35 pm PDT by Juli Clover
Zoom, a video conferencing app that many people are using at the current time to keep in touch with coworkers while working from home, was sending data to Facebook without disclosing the data sharing to customers. As of today, Zoom has updated its iOS app to remove the SDK that was providing data to Facebook through the Login with Facebook feature, according to Motherboard, the site that...

Apple Suppliers Worried About iPhone Demand, Production Ramp-Up for New iPhones Reportedly Postponed

Friday March 27, 2020 5:56 pm PDT by Juli Clover
Most of the factories in China that supply devices and components to Apple are back to churning out products, but Apple suppliers are said to be worried about how much demand there will be for the current iPhone models and the new iPhones expected in the fall. According to Reuters, a senior official at one of Apple's major supply companies said that orders for quarter ending in March are...

2020 iPad Pro Teardown Provides Closer Look at LiDAR Scanner and Confirms Incremental Update

Saturday March 28, 2020 9:56 am PDT by Hartley Charlton
iFixit today shared a video teardown of the new iPad Pro, which Apple unveiled earlier this month. iFixit found that most of the internals of the 2020 iPad Pro are the same as the 2018 model, confirming that the device is a relatively incremental update. The most notable new feature seen inside the new iPad Pro was the LiDAR scanner, which measures the distance to surrounding objects up...

Apple Watch Series 6 Could Feature Touch ID Fingerprint Sensor, Pulse Oximetry and Sleep Tracking Support

Friday March 27, 2020 11:28 am PDT by Juli Clover
The upcoming Apple Watch Series 6 set to be released this fall could include a Touch ID fingerprint sensor built into the crown of the device, according to Israeli site The Verifier, which cites "senior sources" who have worked with its staff for a "number of years" as the source of the rumor. It's not clear how the alleged Touch ID fingerprint sensor would be implemented, as the Digital...

Bloomberg: Apple's 5G iPhone Still on Schedule for Fall Launch, But Future Products Could Be Delayed

Monday March 30, 2020 2:40 am PDT by Tim Hardwick
Apple's 5G iPhone is still on track to launch within the company's typical annual fall release schedule, according to a new Bloomberg report on filed on Monday. Signs are that Apple's Chinese-centric manufacturing -- of which Hon Hai is the linchpin -- is slowly getting back on track. The next iPhones with 5G wireless capabilities remain on schedule to launch in the fall, partly because mass...

Kuo: Apple to Launch Several Macs With Arm-Based Processors in 2021, USB4 Support Coming to Macs in 2022

Thursday March 26, 2020 8:19 pm PDT by Joe Rossignol
Apple plans to launch several Mac notebooks and desktop computers with its own custom designed Arm-based processors in 2021, analyst Ming-Chi Kuo said today in a research note obtained by MacRumors. Kuo believes that Arm-based processors will significantly enhance the competitive advantage of the Mac lineup, allow Apple to refresh its Mac models without relying on Intel's processor roadmap,...

Top Stories: Hands-On With 2020 iPad Pro and MacBook Air, iOS and iPadOS 13.4 Released, iPhone 12 Delay?

Saturday March 28, 2020 6:00 am PDT by MacRumors Staff
After last week's flurry of product launches, Apple's new iPad Pro and MacBook Air have started to make their way into consumers' hands, and we've gone hands-on with both of them this week. Apple this week also released iOS and iPadOS 13.4 (as well as macOS, watchOS, and tvOS updates) with a number of new features and improvements. Subscribe to the MacRumors YouTube channel for more videos. ...

Deals: Huge Refurbished iPhone Sale Discounts iPhone 7, 8, X, XR, and XS (From $120)

Friday March 27, 2020 5:47 am PDT by Mitchel Broussard
Woot is back today with a big sale on refurbished iPhones, including markdowns on the iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8, iPhone 8 Plus, iPhone X, iPhone XR, iPhone XS, and iPhone XS Max. Note: MacRumors is an affiliate partner with Woot. When you click a link and make a purchase, we may receive a small payment, which helps us keep the site running. As with every Woot purchase, those...

Apple Releases ProRes RAW Beta for Windows

Monday March 30, 2020 9:33 am PDT by Juli Clover
Apple today released ProRes RAW for Windows in a beta capacity (via Mark Gurman), with the software designed to allow ProRes RAW and ProRes RAW HQ video files to be watched in compatible applications on Windows machines. According to Apple, the software will let the files be played within several Adobe apps: Adobe After Effects (Beta) Adobe Media Encocder (Beta) Adobe Premiere...