Apple has accused Qualcomm of failing to pay it $1 billion in rebates that it says it is owed. The Cupertino company has historically used Qualcomm's modems in its phones, though it's recently switched to Intel chips for that objective.
Apple, of course, says the claims by Qualcomm have no merit.
Although Apple doesn't use Snapdragon processors in its iPhones, it's still on the hook for numerous patents Qualcomm owns. Qualcomm charges a percentage of the price of each handset regardless of whether it includes a chip from the company, and Apple is sick of paying those fees. Rosenstock believes that "like [Qualcomm's] other courtroom maneuvers. this latest legal effort will fail".
She highlighted that Qualcomm's lawsuits are based on three non-standard essential patents, covering power management and a touch-screen technology called Force Touch that Apple uses in iPhones.
Technical Analysis Perspective: Lam Research Corporation (LRCX), VMware, Inc. (VMW)
In the most updated research from a number of analysts on Wall Street, the company gets 16 Buys and 0 Sell among 19 analysts. During such notable technical setup, fundamental investors usually stay away and are careful shorting or selling the stock.
It seems exceedingly unlikely that sales of any iPhones will be banned. In July, it filed a similar claim in the USA, pointing to six patents that it said Apple was in violation of. It could also give Qualcomm some leverage when negotiating the outcome of those suits.
While we've detailed the legal bickering between the two tech giants on this site on numerous occasions, Qualcomm's latest move is aimed at crippling Apple's base of manufacturing in China. The filing was prompted by a lawsuit from the Federal Trade Commission, which claimed that Qualcomm was abusing its market position to get more money when selling its smartphone modems, since it's by far the dominant supplier.
Things are not looking particularly good for Qualcomm. Earlier this week, Qualcomm was fined a record NT$23.4 billion ($773 million) by Taiwan's Fair Trade Commission, a ruling the company is appealing.