Qualcomm (predatory pricing) (AT.39711) [Archived]

The following Competition practice note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Qualcomm (predatory pricing) (AT.39711) [Archived]
  • Case facts
  • Timeline
  • Commentary
  • Related cases

Qualcomm (predatory pricing) (AT.39711) [Archived]

CASE HUB

NOTE—appeal lodged before the General Court in Case T- 671/19

ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 18 July 2019; it is no longer maintained.

See further, timeline, commentary and related cases.

Case facts

OutlineEuropean Commission Article 102 TFEU investigations into Qualcomm, looking at alleged predatory pricing in relation to baseband chipsets (Case AT.39711).

Latest developmentOn 18 July 2019, the Commission issued its infringement decision against Qualcomm, finding that it abused its dominant position for engaging in predatory pricing by selling its baseband chipsets at below cost to two key customers with the aim of forcing a competitor (Icera) from the market. The Commission imposed a fine of €242m on Qualcomm.

PartiesQualcomm, a US based company headquartered in San Diego (California), designs and markets wireless telecommunications products and services from 157 locations throughout the world. It is the world's largest supplier of baseband chipsets.

BackgroundOn 16 July 2015, the Commission announced it had launched two formal investigations into Qualcomm.

The investigation in relation to alleged predatory pricing (Case AT.39711) was launched following a complaint lodged in 2010 by Icera, a UK-based mobile chipmaker (Icera is now owned by US company Nvidia). Icera was Qualcomm’s main competitor for leading edge UMTS chipsets at the time of the alleged infringement.

On 8 December 2015, the Commission

Popular documents