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
Qualcomm opened this front in 2017 when it asked the US ITC to ban imports of iPhones running Intel components, claiming infringement of six patents it framed as non-standard-essential. The judge's ruling is a split verdict: one patent infringed, but no exclusion order — the remedy Qualcomm actually sought.
First-order effects
- Apple's Intel-equipped iPhones keep entering the US market without restriction, so the immediate sales impact is nil despite the infringement finding.
- Qualcomm gains a legal win on the merits of one patent but loses the exclusion-order leverage that was the point of the ITC route.
Second-order effects
- With the US trade-remedy path closed, Qualcomm's pressure campaign shifts to foreign courts — a strategy already visible in the Chinese preliminary injunction against iPhone 6S-to-X sales issued weeks after this ruling.
- Intel's position as the alternate modem supplier inside US-bound iPhones is preserved, keeping Apple's dual-sourcing option alive against Qualcomm's component business.
Third-order effects
- If judges keep separating infringement findings from import bans, exclusion orders lose their value as negotiation weapons in chip disputes, pushing licensing fights toward damages verdicts and parallel proceedings across jurisdictions rather than border blockades.
The trend: Smartphone chipset patent wars are migrating from US import-ban tactics at the ITC to multi-front litigation in national courts, where Qualcomm has shown it can still extract sales injunctions.