ITC judge says that iPhones infringed one Qualcomm patent but denies the chipmaker's request for a ban on the import of Apple's phones into the US
Context & Ripple Effects
This ruling closes the first phase of a fight Qualcomm opened more than a year earlier, when it first signaled plans to ask the ITC to halt iPhone imports from Asia and then formally petitioned the commission in July 2017 to bar iPhone models using Intel components over six patents it claimed were not standard-essential. The judge's split verdict — one patent infringed, but no exclusion order — means Qualcomm's central goal, cutting Intel-equipped iPhones out of the US market, failed even though it secured a finding of infringement.
First-order effects
- Apple faces no disruption to US iPhone sales or its Intel-modem supply line, since the judge denied the import ban Qualcomm sought.
- Qualcomm walks away with a judicial finding that iPhones infringed one of its patents, but without the market-blocking remedy that would have given it immediate negotiating leverage.
Second-order effects
- With the ITC route narrowed, Qualcomm's pressure campaign shifts to other venues and remedies — the infringement finding becomes ammunition for licensing talks rather than a sales blocker.
- Apple and Intel gain confidence that their component sourcing survives patent challenges framed around specific suppliers, reducing the risk premium on Intel-based iPhone models.
Third-order effects
- If the pattern holds, ITC exclusion orders prove hard to obtain when complaints target only part of a rival's supply chain, pushing chipmakers toward multi-jurisdiction litigation and licensing pressure instead of single-forum import bans.
The trend: Chip-level patent wars between Qualcomm and Apple are converging on licensing leverage fought across multiple courts and regulators, with outright import bans proving the hardest remedy to win.