Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
501 F.3d 297 (2007)


Facts

In the cellular telephone industry, industry-wide standards were necessary to ensure interoperability among different servicers and device manufacturers. The standards were established by private standards determining organizations (SDOs). Because much of the technology included in the standards was subject to intellectual property rights, SDOs required that industry companies license their patent-protected technology on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. Qualcomm Inc. (Qualcomm) (defendant) provided to an SDO a technology called wideband code division multiple access (WCDMA) to be used in the industry standard. Qualcomm held a patent on the technology and agreed to comply with the SDO’s FRAND terms requirement. Broadcom Corporation (Broadcom) (plaintiff) brought an antitrust suit, alleging that Qualcomm breached its FRAND commitment by providing its WCDMA technology on non-FRAND terms. Broadcom claimed that Qualcomm had engaged in deceptive conduct by committing to FRAND terms to induce the SDO to adopt its technology, but had then violated those terms. In particular, Broadcom accused Qualcomm of demanding higher payments from competitors and consumers not using other Qualcomm technology. According to Broadcom, Qualcomm intended to monopolize the WCDMA technology market. Broadcom claimed that WCDMA was necessary for the functioning of the industry standard. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. Broadcom appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Barry, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 176,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.