바카라온라인

1. Case summary

① Case background: The Korean Fair Trade Commission (the “KFTC”) had imposed a corrective order and a fine of approximately KRW 131.1 billion on Qualcomm Incorporated and its two other subsidiaries (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Qualcomm”) for violation of FRAND commitments to be observed as a holder of standard essential patents, and abusing their market dominant position. Qualcomm had filed a lawsuit against the KFTC for its disposition. We represented the KFTC and won the case at both the high court (specifically, the Seoul High Court) and the supreme court levels.

​② Litigation: On December 4, 2019, the Seoul High Court determined that most of the corrective order and all the disposition of the fine, which had been imposed by the KFTC on Qualcomm for abusing its market-dominant position, were lawful. Both Qualcomm and the KFTC appealed against this judgment. After three years of review, the Supreme Court of Korea dismissed both the appeals filed by Qualcomm and the KFTC, and ruled to the effect that most of the corrective order and all the fine, which were imposed by the KFTC on Qualcomm, were 바카라온라인.

​2. Our argument and role

​Representing the KFTC, Barun Law actively demonstrated that its decision was lawful and that the corrective order against Qualcomm must be maintained, and won the case over Qualcomm’s request for suspension of the corrective order. We obtained a ruling to the effect that the KFTC won the case that its disposition was 바카라온라인 from the Seoul High Court and the Supreme Court of Korea. In this litigation, in which almost all of the large domestic law firms participated, we contributed to the final entry of decision in favor of the KFTC by submitting solid 바카라온라인 principles and grounds for the legitimacy of the KFTC’s disposition with untiring passion and effort on behalf of the KFTC.

​3. Implications

​The decision is meaningful in that it clearly declares that it is illegal (i) to establish an anti-competitive business structure by a business possessing a market-dominant position to maintain and expand its monopoly position in the standard essential patent market and modem chipset market while it recognizes its obligation to comply with FRAND commitments, and (ii) to monopolize the market structure by taking advantage of the anti-competitive business structure causing the effect of restricting competition in the relevant market.

​□ Attorneys in charge: Seo Hye-Sook, Ahn Youn-Woo, Chung Kyung-Hwan, Chung Yang-Hun, Choi Ye-Eun, Lee Ki-Peum and Kim Yong-Hyun