Following its prior decision in the related FTC proceeding (FTC v. Qualcomm Inc. (9th Cir. 2020) 969 F.3d 974, this decision holds that private plaintiffs did not allege a viable tie-in claim under California’s Cartwright Act based on Qualcomm’s “no license, no chips” policy of not selling its modem chips to manufacturers who did not also license Qualcomm’s patents. The claim failed because there were no competitors in the tied market as no one other than Qualcomm sold the tied product–Qualcomm’s patents. The district court also correctly granted summary judgment on plaintiff’s UCL claim. Plaintiffs could not show they relied on any false representations by Qualcomm and hence could not pursue a fraudulent business practice claim. Their unfair practice claim was not tethered to any viable antitrust law. Insofar as the claim was based on exclusive dealing contracts that Qualcomm last had with Apple and Samsung in 2014, plaintiffs couldn’t obtain injunctive relief and were also barred from restitution as the Cartwright Act provided an adequate legal remedy. The district court also did not abuse its discretion in excluding plaintiff’s expert’s report which was first disclosed 4 years after the close of expert discovery. Under FRCP 37, the burden is on the sanctioned party to show that the discovery violation is harmless. Plaintiffs did not satisfy that burden.