Analisis Yuridis Sengketa Bisnis Internasional: Studi Kasus Apple Inc dan Qualcomm

Authors

  • Chatrine Orry Manurung Universitas Tarumanagara, Indonesia
  • Gunardi Lie Universitas Tarumanagara, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.57235/jalu.v2i1.8550

Keywords:

Cross-Border Litigation, Settlement Agreement, Kepastian Hukum, Paten Esensial (SEP), Posisi Dominan, FRAND

Abstract

Sengketa antara Apple Inc. dan Qualcomm Inc. merupakan salah satu konflik hukum paling kompleks dalam sejarah transaksi bisnis internasional, yang melibatkan persilangan antara perlindungan Hak Kekayaan Intelektual (HKI) dan hukum persaingan usaha. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis efektivitas strategi litigasi lintas batas (cross-border litigation) dibandingkan dengan kesepakatan damai (settlement agreement) dalam menjamin kepastian hukum global, serta meninjau praktik penyalahgunaan posisi dominan (abuse of dominant position) melalui model bisnis lisensi paten esensial (SEP). Dengan menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif dan pendekatan studi kasus, penelitian ini menemukan bahwa litigasi lintas batas cenderung menghasilkan fragmentasi putusan yang menciptakan ketidakpastian hukum (spillover uncertainty) bagi pelaku usaha. Hal ini dipertegas oleh fluktuasi putusan pada tingkat banding, sebagaimana terlihat dalam perkara Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc. (2025), yang menunjukkan bahwa pengadilan nasional sering kali gagal memberikan solusi universal. Sebaliknya, Global Settlement Agreement muncul sebagai instrumen harmonisasi yang paling efektif berlandaskan asas pacta sunt servanda. Lebih lanjut, penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa model lisensi Qualcomm yang didasarkan pada harga perangkat akhir merupakan bentuk penyalahgunaan posisi dominan yang melanggar prinsip FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory), yang menggeser fungsi hukum dari instrumen keadilan menjadi instrumen koersif dalam negosiasi bisnis global.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

European Union Law Analysis. (2018). Selected Issues in SEP Licensing and Competition Law (Huawei v ZTE Framework). Springer Open Access.

Gao, J. (2020). How IWNCOMM v Apple Set the Benchmark for SEP Injunctions. China University of Political Science and Law.

Geradin, D. (2010). Standardisation and Technological Innovation: Some Reflections on Ex Ante Licensing, FRAND, and the Proper Means to Reward Innovation. Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 6(4), 933–952.

Grasso, R. (2017). Selected Issues in SEP Licensing in Europe: The Antitrust Perspective. Springer Nature.

Lemley, M. A., & Shapiro, C. (2007). Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking. Texas Law Review, 85(7), 1991–2049.

O’Daly, C., et al. (2024). FRAND Quarterly: Navigating the Global SEP Landscape – December 2024. WilmerHale / JDSupra.

Prabowo, A. (2019). Efektivitas penyelesaian sengketa melalui alternatif dispute resolution dalam kontrak bisnis internasional. Jurnal Privat Law, 7(1), 85–96.

Sari, D. P., & Rahmawati, I. (2021). Penyalahgunaan posisi dominan dalam hukum persaingan usaha di Indonesia. Jurnal Persaingan Usaha, 1(1), 1–15.

Scott Morton, F., & Shapiro, C. (2016). Strategic Patent Acquisitions. Antitrust Law Journal, 79(2), 463–499.

Sidak, J. G. (2015). The Meaning of FRAND, Part II: Injunctions. Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 11(1), 201–269.

Siregar, M. (2017). Peran arbitrase internasional dalam penyelesaian sengketa bisnis lintas negara. Jurnal Rechts Vinding, 6(2), 245–260.

Downloads

Published

2026-05-29

How to Cite

Chatrine Orry Manurung, & Gunardi Lie. (2026). Analisis Yuridis Sengketa Bisnis Internasional: Studi Kasus Apple Inc dan Qualcomm. Justice Amnesty Law and Undoing Journal, 2(1), 381–387. https://doi.org/10.57235/jalu.v2i1.8550

Issue

Vol. 2 No. 1 (2026): Mei 2026

Section

Articles

Citation Check

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Chatrine Orry Manurung, Gunardi Lie

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

  1. Authors certify that the work reported here has not been published before and contains no materials the publication of which would violate any copyright or other personal or proprietary right of any person or entity.
  2. Authors dont transfer or license the copyright of publishing to JALU: Justice Amnesty Law and Undoing Journal Research to publish the article in any media format, to share, to disseminate, to index, and to maximize the impact of the article in any databases.
  3. Authors hereby dont agree to transfer a copyright for publishing to JALU: Justice Amnesty Law and Undoing Journal a Publisher of the manuscript. 
  4. Authors reserve the following: 
    1. all proprietary rights other than copyright such as patent rights; 
    2. the right to use all or part of this article in future works of our own such as in books and lectures;
    3. use for presentation in a meeting or conference and distributing copies to attendees; 
    4. use for internal training by author's company;
    5. distribution to colleagues for their research use;
    6. use in a subsequent compilation of the author's works;
    7. inclusion in a thesis or dissertation;
    8. reuse of portions or extracts from the article in other works (with full acknowledgement of final article);
    9. preparation of derivative works (other than commercial purposes) (with full acknowledgement of final article); and
    10. voluntary posting on open web sites operated by author or author’s institution for scholarly purposes, but it should follow the open access license of Creative Common CC BY-NC License.