Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/2349

(Case C-819/24 P)

(C/2025/2349)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Qualcomm, Inc. (represented by: M. Rato, advogado, M. Davilla, A. Kontosakou, 949b7b3ccc1bfb9)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Nvidia Corp.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the Judgment under appeal;

—annul the Decision (1) at issue.

—In the alternative, for the reasons set out in detail in the present Appeal, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice; and

—order the European Commission to pay the Appellants costs before the Court of Justice and the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the Appeal, the Appellant relied on the following pleas in law:

First Plea: In dismissing the First Plea, the General Court commits errors of law by misapplying EU case law, relying on inadequate reasoning, distorting the clear sense of the evidence and failing to engage with arguments put forward by the Appellant.

Second Plea: In dismissing the Second Plea, the General Court commits errors of law by misapplying EU case law, relying on inadequate reasoning, distorting the clear sense of the evidence and failing to engage with arguments put forward by the Appellant.

Third Plea: The Judgment errs in law by dismissing the Third, Fourth, Ninth, and Eleventh Pleas, errs in finding that the Decision conducted an AEC analysis and that it correctly established the alleged abuse, errs in dismissing as ineffective Qualcomms arguments, fails to examine all relevant circumstances, and is insufficiently reasoned.

Fourth Plea: In dismissing Qualcomms arguments regarding the Decisions price restatement, the General Court errs in law, misunderstands and/or distorts the facts, and fails to engage with Qualcomms arguments.

Fifth Plea: By upholding the Decisions erroneous allocation of non-recurring engineering expenses, the Judgment commits errors of law, fails to engage with Qualcomms arguments, distorts the evidence, and fails to provide adequate reasoning.

Sixth Plea: By upholding the Decisions erroneous calculation of costs, the Judgment commits manifest errors of law, fails to engage with Qualcomms arguments, distorts the evidence, and fails to provide adequate reasoning.

Seventh Plea: In dismissing the Tenth Plea, the General Court commits manifest errors of law, fails to consider all relevant evidentiary elements, misconstrues and misapplies EU case law, fails to provide adequate reasoning, and impermissibly substitutes its own reasoning for that of the EC.

—

(1) Commission Decision C(2019) 5361 final dated 18 July 2019 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the Agreement on European Economic Area in Case AT.39711  Qualcomm (predation) (OJ 2019, C 375, p. 25).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2349/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—