These chips are being used on flagship Android devices

Nov 30, 2017 08:39 GMT  ·  By

The never-ending war between Qualcomm and Apple has just received a new chapter after the Cupertino-based tech giant sued the chip maker for patent violation with the Snapdragon chips.

Apple claims that the Snapdragon 800 and 820 processors, which are being used on a wide array of Android devices, including those manufactured by Samsung, infringe its very own patents, with the company claiming that it “began seeking those patents years before Qualcomm began seeking the patents it asserts against Apple in this case.”

At the same time, Apple has also updated its position regarding a previous Qualcomm complaint which in turn claimed Cupertino violated six of its patents with battery-related tech. Qualcomm requested an iPhone and iPad ban in the United States, with Apple describing all the alleged patents as “invalid.”

Now Apple says it hasn’t infringed on any of Qualcomm’s patents because it owns eight different patents covering battery technology, so if there’s anyone who can be accused of infringement, it’s actually the chip maker.

Long-time legal dispute

While by this point it’s pretty easy to lose track of who infringed what, Apple isn’t willing by any means to give up on the legal fight with Qualcomm after it started it in early 2017 by asking for $1 billion due to royalties paid for technology “they have nothing to do with.”

As a response, Qualcomm filed a countersuit in April, eventually asking a US court to ban iPhone and iPad sales due to violating a series of patents that it owns.

Apple, however, is not alone in this fight, and several of its partners and suppliers have also filed lawsuits against Qualcomm, accusing the company of violating two sections of the US antitrust law called Sherman Act.

In short, Hon Hai Precision Industry (parent company of Foxconn), Wistron, Compal Electronics, and Pegatron said Qualcomm was trying to obtain payments for their technology in excess of the agreed licensing fees. All Apple contractors refused to pay the extra fees and moved the dispute to court.