On September 29, 2021, the Ninth Circuit vacated the class certification order in Stromberg et al. v. Qualcomm, [1] an antitrust class action brought on behalf of indirect purchasers alleging that Qualcomm monopolized the market for modem chips by refusing to sell chips to manufacturers that did not pay above-market royalty rates to license its patents and by otherwise limiting the ability of rival chip suppliers to compete. Although the district court had certified the plaintiff classes under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3), the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded the case, holding that differences in states’ antitrust laws can be so great as to prevent common questions from predominating over individual ones, failing to satisfy the so-called predominance element of class certification. The
Share on
|
|
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismisses the class action brought on behalf of indirect purchasers alleging that a chip manufacturer abused its dominant position by refusing to sell chips to manufacturers that did not pay above-market royalty rates to license its patents (Qualcomm / Stromberg)
Access to this article is restricted to subscribers
Already Subscribed? Sign-in
Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.
Read one article for free
Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.
