Judgment Abstract on NDRC’s Administrative Decision of Qualcomm Incorporated (Part 2)

 (By You Yunting)  As we have already posted Judgment Abstract on NDRC’s Administrative Decision of Qualcomm Incorporated (Part 1) on April 17 2015, today we would like to introduce more.

III What’re the legitimate basis and the final decision?

Pursuant to Article 47 and Article 49 of the Anti-Monopoly Law, the NDRC made the following decisiosn against Qualcomm’s abuse of dominant market position in the SEPs markets and the baseband chip markets:

  1. Order Qualcomm a halt to illegal activities upon abuse of dominant market position as follows:

a   Qualcomm shall provide patent lists to its licensees in China and not charge licensees for expired patents.


Do All Minimum Price Limits Violate the Anti-trust Law in China?


(By You Yunting) In the post, “The Legal Sense of the Punishment over the Vertical Monopoly of Mao Tai and Wu Liang Ye By NDRC,” which was posted several days ago, we described China’s first case on vertical pricing agreements (a vertical monopoly contract refers to a contract a monopolistic business signs with its business partner, which limits pricing or contains other monopolistic content). The application of Article 14 of the Anti Monopoly Law adopted by the court in that case was different from the application adopted by the China National Development and Reform Committee. We have found and studied the written judgment for that case, which is now in its second instance. Although according to the Civil Procedure Law, the judgment of the first instance has not yet come into effect due to the appeal, some of the main points of the decision are worth looking at. Therefore, we would like to share our opinions on it with our subscribers.