Apple claims that licensing agreements, under which it is required to make Qualcomm's royalties from each iPhone produced, are void. This position was made by representatives of the "apple" giant in the US federal court.

At the beginning of the year Apple sued Qualcomm, accusing it of abusing the dominant position in the market of cellular modems for smartphones. Later it became known that Apple does not transfer to its partners who build the iPhone, the means designed to pay royalty Qualcomm.

Apple said this, that it will not transfer money until its dispute with Qualcomm is resolved. Given how often such cases are delayed in the US, the step of the Cupertins was quite amusing.

Apple's initial lawsuit was relatively narrow, focused mainly on clarifying whether it violated the contract with Qualcomm, helping regulators who studied the business practice of Qualcomm, or not. But the new charges directed to the court, expand the range of requirements of Apple. In Cupertino they are trying to destroy the established business model of Qualcomm with the help of a legal theory based on the decisions of the Supreme Court that were issued last month.

The US Supreme Court made it difficult for manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies to control how their products are used or resold, acting in May against Lexmark International Inc. In a patent dispute because of the resale of another company by her former ink cartridges.

After that, Apple opposed the established practice of Qualcomm to require customers to sign agreements on a patent license before they buy chips known in the industry as "no license, no chips" (no license, no chips).

Currently, licensing allows Qualcomm to receive royalties as a percentage of the total cost of iPhone sales in exchange for the supply of modem chips that are used in phones to connect to cellular networks.

Apple claims that the court's decision on Lexmark showed that Qualcomm has the right to receive only "one fee" for its intellectual property and products. That is, Qualcomm should be allowed to charge a license fee for a patent or for a chip, but not for both.