Qualcomm UK Class Action: SEP Licensing in Focus
The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal has commenced proceedings in a landmark class-action case against Qualcomm, with significant implications for the telecommunications patent licensing landscape.
The consumer group Which? is spearheading the collective action, which alleges that Qualcomm abused its dominant market position in the cellular baseband processor market.
The case examines whether its licensing practices for its portfolio of Standard-Essential Patents (SEPs) resulted in inflated costs for smartphones, ultimately borne by consumers.
The claim, valued at approximately US$620m, covers nearly 29 million UK consumers who purchased Apple and Samsung devices between October 2015 and January 2024.
The outcome of the five-week trial could establish a critical precedent for how SEP holders monetise their intellectual property and the obligations they face when licensing technology that is fundamental to industry standards, such as 4G and 5G.
The core allegation: A breach of FRAND obligations?
The dispute centres on Qualcomm’s long-standing and often contentious licensing model. As the holder of a vast portfolio of SEPs crucial for cellular connectivity, Qualcomm is obligated to license its technology on Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms.
However, Which? alleges that Qualcomm leveraged its market dominance in chipset supply to impose excessive and unfair royalty fees on Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs).
The claim asserts that Qualcomm’s practice of calculating royalties based on the total value of a handset, rather than the value of the specific components or intellectual property provided, constitutes an abuse of its dominant position.
It is argued that it enforced a “no licence, no chips” policy, compelling OEMs like Apple and Samsung to accept these terms to secure the supply of essential baseband processors.
Which? contends that these supra-FRAND royalties were a direct cost passed down the value chain, resulting in higher retail prices for consumers.
Qualcomm has previously refuted the claims, stating in 2021 that the case had “no basis.” The tribunal must first determine whether Qualcomm's conduct constitutes market dominance and whether it amounts to abuse before proceeding with any assessment of damages.
A protracted legal battle with industry-wide resonance
The extensive timeline of the case highlights the complexity of litigating competition law in the technology sector. Lisa Webb, Senior Lawyer at Which?, speaks to the the lengthy process.
“We filed this claim back in 2021, so this first trial being now in 2025 – it’s obviously a bit of a slog,” she says.
The case is structured as an ‘opt-out’ collective action, a procedural mechanism in the UK that automatically includes all affected individuals unless they actively choose to withdraw.
“But the real benefit of this system is that as a consumer, you don’t need to do anything... if we win, we will get you your money,” Lisa explains.
For technology companies and licensors, the highlights the increasing risk of large-scale litigation driven by consumer advocacy groups in the UK.
Global scrutiny and implications for the telecoms ecosystem
Qualcomm’s licensing strategy has faced challenges from regulators and competitors globally for years. The European Union has fined it for antitrust violations and a parallel case is ongoing in Canada.
A notable US case brought by the Federal Trade Commission was ultimately dismissed in 2020, demonstrating the legal complexities involved.
Anabel Hoult, CEO of Which?, framed the trial as a crucial moment for accountability. “This trial is a huge moment. It shows how the power of consumers – backed by Which? – can be used to hold the biggest companies to account if they abuse their dominant position,” she says.
For the telecommunications industry, the verdict will be pivotal. A ruling against Qualcomm could embolden other implementers of technology to challenge established licensing programmes and could reshape the balance of power between SEP holders and licensees.
Other major licensors, such as Nokia and Ericsson, will closely monitor the proceedings, as the outcome could influence royalty negotiations and the structure of patent pools across the sector.
The tribunal’s decision will undoubtedly have far-reaching consequences for intellectual property strategy, supply chain economics and the regulatory environment governing the global telecommunications market.
