Qualcomm set to triumph in UK smartphone ‘patent tax’ case
- Reference: 1771394987
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2026/02/18/qualcomm_wins_uk_competition_case/
- Source link:
Which? [1]claimed that Qualcomm abused its market position as a dominant producer of processors and radio chips for smartphones, and that even Samsung and Apple felt they had no alternative but to pay inflated prices for some parts and then passed on the costs to buyers. UK consumers, the group argued, therefore paid more for certain smartphones between October 2015 and January 2024. Up to 29 million UK residents bought Qualcomm-equipped phones during that period, leading Which? to suggest they collectively overpaid by £480 million ($650 million), or £17 ($23) per device.
Senior Qualcomm execs and expert economists gave evidence on the matter during a five-week trial held in October and November 2025.
[2]
Which?’s arguments flopped and the org concluded that the Tribunal will make three findings:
Qualcomm did not coerce Apple, Apple’s Chipset Manufacturers (CMs), or Samsung to sign any patent licences or chipset agreements;
Qualcomm did not leverage its position as a chipset supplier to coerce Apple, Apple’s CMs, or Samsung to agree to any licensing terms; and
Qualcomm’s licensing and chipset practices did not infringe competition laws, did not result in inflated royalties, and did not lead to an increase in prices consumers paid for their mobile phones.
[3]Here we go again: Microsoft in UK court over cloud licensing
[4]Vodafone, EE, O2, Three hit with £3B overcharging lawsuit
[5]Apple faces £1.5B payout after losing UK App Store case
[6]Google faces billion-quid bruising over Play Store fees in the UK
The consumer group and Qualcomm therefore agreed to wrap things up. Which? has filed documents to withdraw its case without Qualcomm paying a single penny and [7]posted news of its decision.
Qualcomm’s UK lawyers clearly did a decent job preparing the case and stayed classy by not celebrating victory in their [8]announcement of the planned agreement to write off the case.
[9]
It’s not clear why the Tribunal decided Which?’s case was bound to fail, but for what it’s worth in the last few months Apple and Samsung have both signaled they want to use less Qualcomm kit.
Cupertino has started using its own modems in the [10]iPhone Air and some other low-end handsets, and Samsung [11]revealed it wants to improve the performance of its Exynos SoCs so they can power its premium smartphones – a role Qualcomm currently fills with its Snapdragon silicon. ®
Get our [12]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/06/which_says_qualcomm_owes_uk/
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aZWb0Xvsz1Yu8dTPhR1TjwAAAIM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2025/12/12/microsoft_cat_cloud_licensing/
[4] https://www.theregister.com/2025/11/18/uk_mobile_overcharging_suit/
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/24/uk_class_action_apple/
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2025/06/12/google_play_store_fees/
[7] https://www.smartphoneclaim.co.uk/
[8] https://www.brickcourt.co.uk/news/detail/consumers-association-which-applies-to-withdraw-480m-collective-action-against-qualcomm-following-trial
[9] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aZWb0Xvsz1Yu8dTPhR1TjwAAAIM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2025/09/09/apples_awe_droppings_fall_close/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/30/samsung_q3_2025/
[12] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
In Australia, LTE support in phones is mandatory.
I quietly rejoice at this.
In the (distant) past, I worked for a company that was royally shafted by the 'squeaky clean' Which?
Since then I have (possibly unfairly) assumed malice or corruption behind all they do.
Simple solution
If a standard is required by law, then it must be cost-free to implement.
Anything else amounts to privatisation of law.
Re: Simple solution
I understand your thinking but this will actually deter companies from working towards standards since that would mean any costs for work they do which is incorporated into a standard cannot be recovered. What there should be is a discovery phase where each contribution to a standard is assessed to assign a percentage of the whole 'price per implementation' value. You would extend this to have a license cost determined by the standard committee for companies who were not contributers to certify their products met the standard
If a government decide to make a standard a lawful requirement then they need to cover the costs of that standard otherwise it is simply theft by fiat
As long as LTE is supported by phone's modems, Qualcomm will get its share. We could avoid this by not allowing patented stuff in gsm standards, but it seems like they are all on qc's payroll.