<?xml version="1.0"?>
<oembed><version>1.0</version><provider_name>Priori Legal</provider_name><provider_url>https://www.priorilegal.com</provider_url><author_name>Matthew Liebson</author_name><author_url>https://www.priorilegal.com/blog/author/matthew-liebson/</author_url><title>FTC v. Qualcomm: What It Could Mean for Your Company - Priori Legal</title><type>rich</type><width>600</width><height>338</height><html>&lt;blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="RlGTr7aCmK"&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.priorilegal.com/blog/ftc-v-qualcomm-what-it-could-mean-for-your-company/"&gt;FTC v. Qualcomm: What It Could Mean for Your Company&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;iframe sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted" src="https://www.priorilegal.com/blog/ftc-v-qualcomm-what-it-could-mean-for-your-company/embed/#?secret=RlGTr7aCmK" width="600" height="338" title="&#x201C;FTC v. Qualcomm: What It Could Mean for Your Company&#x201D; &#x2014; Priori Legal" data-secret="RlGTr7aCmK" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" class="wp-embedded-content"&gt;&lt;/iframe&gt;&lt;script type="text/javascript"&gt;
/* &lt;![CDATA[ */
/*! This file is auto-generated */
!function(d,l){"use strict";l.querySelector&amp;&amp;d.addEventListener&amp;&amp;"undefined"!=typeof URL&amp;&amp;(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&amp;&amp;!/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),c=new RegExp("^https?:$","i"),i=0;i&lt;o.length;i++)o[i].style.display="none";for(i=0;i&lt;a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&amp;&amp;(s.removeAttribute("style"),"height"===t.message?(1e3&lt;(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r&lt;200&amp;&amp;(r=200),s.height=r):"link"===t.message&amp;&amp;(r=new URL(s.getAttribute("src")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&amp;&amp;n.host===r.host&amp;&amp;l.activeElement===s&amp;&amp;(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener("message",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll("iframe.wp-embedded-content"),r=0;r&lt;s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute("data-secret"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+="#?secret="+t,e.setAttribute("data-secret",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:"ready",secret:t},"*")},!1)))}(window,document);
/* ]]&gt; */
&lt;/script&gt;
</html><thumbnail_url>https://www.priorilegal.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/24-03-07-Replacement-Blog-Post-Image.jpg</thumbnail_url><thumbnail_width>1200</thumbnail_width><thumbnail_height>627</thumbnail_height><description>FTC v. Qualcomm Incorporated, filed earlier this year by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), may shed considerable light not only on the state of the law relating to the licensing of &#x201C;standard essential&#x201D; patents but also on the workings of the FTC in the Trump administration. The case alleges that Qualcomm misuses its patent-based &#x201C;monopoly&#x201D;... Read more &raquo;</description></oembed>
