Federal antitrust regulators are unlikely to pursue a Supreme Court appeal to revive their case against electronic chipmaker Qualcomm for illegal monopolization, according to an exclusive published by the Wall Street Journal.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a lawsuit alleging that Qualcomm used unlawful tactics to maintain a monopoly on cell phone chips in 2017. Two years later, the FTC won the lawsuit and Qualcomm was ordered to change its practices.
However, a three-judge panel on the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in Qualcomm’s favor, arguing that the FTC failed to demonstrate its efforts were completely lawful. Last year, the FTC failed to persuade the Ninth Circuit to reconsider the case.
This ruling created an unusual split – and feelings of animosity – between the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department, both of whom share antitrust authority. The latter supported Qualcomm and argued against the FTC in court.
The transition between the Trump and Biden administrations further complicated the matter. The FTC currently has a vacancy and is split evenly between Democrats who were supportive of the case and Republicans who were opposed to the case. At the Justice Department, the solicitor general and head of antitrust division roles remain vacant, with Elizabeth Prelogar serving as the acting solicitor general.
Sources familiar with the matter told the Wall Street Journal that the solicitor’s general office is unlikely to petition on behalf of the FTC because it lacked qualifications for a strong Supreme Court review. This does not necessarily mean support for the previous administration’s positions, said the sources.
The current split on the FTC means that there is not majority support for the case and FTC practices are unclear if a formal vote would be needed to file an appeal to the nation’s highest court.
The case brings the intersection of numerous complex legal areas, such as antitrust law and patent law, leading some to worry that pressing ahead could lead to adverse precedents set by a Supreme Court ruling.
