Thank you, Steve, and good afternoon everyone.
First, I would like to build on Steve's earlier comments regarding Apple's recent legal claims. Not only our Apple's claims without merit, but the attempt to undermine the standards-based agreements that have been the backbone of the mobile revolution, the framework that has facilitated and motivated a small number of companies, like QUALCOMM, to make investments to develop new technology, as well as the products and infrastructure to support that technology. The cornerstone of the global mobile technology ecosystem and the success of so many industry participants is based on the notion that companies that are willing to invest the necessary capital and devote engineering talent to invent technologies long before they can ever be implemented be fairly compensated for sharing those inventions through licensing. At QUALCOMM, we have spent billions of dollars, and have continually focused on inventing the breakthrough technologies that have fuelled the mobile revolution, and enabled multiple generations of technological innovations in smartphones and other connected devices. Our industry leadership today comes from making these significant focused investments ahead of the industry over many years to create leading technology. From our inception, QUALCOMM has been at the forefront of the industry; imaging, inventing and commercializing the fundamental technologies at scale that brought high-speed mobile data and computing to a global mass market reality. It is QUALCOMM, which drove the development of ubiquitous cellular connectivity in mobile computing, including increasingly higher data rates and spectrum efficiency, as well as more powerful and efficient mobile computing solutions that enable the key features and functions of smartphones, and which are making consumers' lives better, connecting billions of people to the Internet for the first time, and enabling countless new businesses in industries. Our technology has enabled the mobile economy and the foundation for business models and applications of companies like Uber, Snapchat, Instagram, messaging apps like WhatsApp and iMessage, streaming services like Spotify, smart assistance like Siri and Google Assistant, and many others across the globe. Our innovations in assisted GPS have also led to location based services, real-time mapping, and navigation service on which hundreds of millions of people around the world now depend. This mobile application revolution was enabled directly by QUALCOMM's business model of inventing and broadly sharing through licensing our key technologies with hundreds of companies in the mobile ecosystem. Without our technology, our investments and our innovation, the mobile world today would not be nearly as disruptive, efficient or useful. QUALCOMM led the industry in producing innovations that provide or support almost every aspect of your smartphone's capability. And Apple has been among the largest beneficiaries of our efforts in investments by been able to easily enter the smartphone space with little to know investments in the core technology. Apple has utilized our technology as the foundation for becoming the most profitable smartphone supplier in the world. Apple's own marketing statements recognize the value QUALCOMM technology contributes to its products. For example, Apple recently acknowledged that the roll-out of LTE networks in India will be the transition that unleashes the power and capability of the iPhone in India.
As the leading innovator in 4G LTE, we agree. Touching briefly on Apple's complaints filed in San Diego and China, they claims that QUALCOMM should be required to license its cellular, standard essential patents for SEPs to modem suppliers, that even when licensing those patents at the device level, QUALCOMM should only be able to charge royalties on the price of the cellular modem chip inside the device. These positions, however, are inconsistent with long-standing industry practice, the IPR policies of the relevant standard setting bodies, the realities of licensing large portfolios of patents, and basic notions of efficiency fairness and economics. First, QUALCOMM and many other major patent holders have long-followed the practice of licensing portfolios of SEPs at the device level, including for 3G and LTE. There has been no sudden change in the law to make this practice improper. And it remains the most efficient and fair method of licensing. Second, neither QUALCOMM's licensing commitments nor panel requires QUALCOMM to license its SEPs at the component level, or charge royalties on the modem chip within a smartphone. There was an attempt by Apple and others to modify the IPR policy of SE, which governs licensing commitments for cellular SEPs to include these concepts. But that effort failed. Third, QUALCOMM has a vast technology patent portfolio that is broadly applicable to the technology and features implemented in smartphones. Focusing on just our cellular SEPs, which is a subset of our overall patent portfolio, only a small percentage of the claims in those patents are implemented entirely within the cellular modem chip. So, even if QUALCOMM were to license that subset of its cellular SEPs to a modem chip supplier. The device supplier using that chip would still need to take a license to the reminder of our cellular SEPs and other patents.
Engaging in licensing at multiple levels create significant inefficiencies with no tangible benefits. And the established value for a portfolio of patents, like QUALCOMM's, does not change by moving from device-level licensing to multi-level licensing at both the model chip and device levels. Finally, Apple claims the QUALCOMM's licensing terms would require Apple to pay higher royalties whenever they add new features that they claim have nothing to do with QUALCOMM's technology or intellectual property. As I just explained, QUALCOMM's mobile technology enables the applications and functions that Apple highlights. In addition, it is well-know that QUALCOMM has per unit running royalty caps as part of its licensing program.
This effectively results in licensees not paying running royalties as a percentage of the device price above a certain net selling price of any given device. Apple's claim that royalties are uncapped is simply incorrect. Licensing at device level provides the licensee with the certainty that it has the rights needed to design, manufacture, and sell devices, regardless of which components within the phone, implement the patents, or whether the component supplier has a license for those patents. Charging royalties, as a percentage of the device price, is fair and consistent with the fact that lower price devices can be used and rely upon less of the licensed technology than the more expensive fully featured devices. The recent KFTC decision, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission compliant, and the filing of Apple's complaints are not coincidental in terms of content and timing.
Apple has been actively driving regulatory tax on QUALCOMM's business and jurisdictions around the world, and misrepresenting facts and withholding information. Apple claims the QUALCOMM retaliated because Apple cooperated with government investigations. To be clear, we did no such thing. We simply objected to Apple making false and misleading statements and withholding information to motivate a tax against QUALCOMM. We welcome the opportunity to have Apple's claims heard in court where we will be entitled the full discovery of Apple's practices in a robust examination of the merits. We will prove that Apple's irresponsible claims of extortion are false.
With respect to the KFTC decision, in December, it announced that it intends to issue a corrective order and impose a fine. As we said last month, this is an unprecedented and unsupportable decision. Inconsistent with the facts in the law and representing a clear violation of due process rights under the Korea U.S. pre-trade agreement. We recently received a written decision from the KFTC, and we'll be appealing the decision and seeking a stay in the sole high court, which we expect will rigorously analyze evidence and apply sound antitrust principles. It should be noted that the KFTC usually takes some number of months to go from a post-hearing decision to a written final order. Here the KFTC completed a very lengthy written decision in less than a month time, which is further evidence the KFTC hurry to judgment without regard to the merits of the case. With respect to the FTC complaint, filed last week, as we outlined in our press release, it was a split decision taken in the last days of the Obama administration and is very focused on Apple, which filed its related case just days later.
It is based on a flawed legal theory, a lack of economic support, and significant misconceptions about the mobile technology industry. It is also very important to note that FTC commissioner, Maureen Ohlhausen, voted against filing the complaint, and went so far as to issue a strong defending statement. We look forward to vigorously defending our business. We have faced legal challenges to our business model over the years, given the powerful commercial interest that play.
But there is clear evidence of vibrant competition across the mobile industry. And this environment is enabled by our broad pro-competitive licensing program. We expect and look forward to outcomes that confirm the valuable contributions to innovation and competition that our technologies bring. Apple's attack on QUALCOMM's business model is not only an attack on QUALCOMM, but also an attack on the smartphone competition that QUALCOMM's business model enables.
Shifting gears, as Steve noted, QTL had a strong first fiscal quarter, as we continue to make very good progress signing new license agreements in China, including a complete resolution of our outstanding legal issues with Meizu. QTL revenues were $1.8 billion, up approximately 13% year-over-year, driven primarily by favorable trends in China including handset sales growth and licensing and compliance progress in the region, as well as strong growth of global sales by Chinese licensees. Total reported device sales in the fiscal first quarter were $62.9 billion, above the mid-point of our prior guidance. And we estimate that reported 3G/4G device shipments were 330 million units with an ASP of $189 at the mid-point. After the end of the first quarter, we completed licensing agreements with both Gionee and Meizu, and have now completed agreements with all of the top 10 Chinese OEMs according to IDC. To date, we have completed agreements with more than 120 manufacturers in China consistent with the NDRC terms. We estimate that we are now collecting royalties on approximately 80% of Chinese OEM global 3G/4G device sales. We remain focused on improved compliance and completing additional agreements, which could provide upside to our estimates.
Turning to global 3G/4G device shipments. For calendar 2016, we estimate 1.56 billion to 1.7 billion devices were shipped, up 8% year-over-year at the mid-point and in line with our prior forecast. For calendar 2017, we continue to expect approximately 7% growth year-over-year with global 3G/4G device shipments of 1.75 billion to 1.85 billion devices, driven by demand in the emerging regions. We estimate the global handset ASP in fiscal 2016 was approximately $185, down approximately 6% year-over-year, consistent with our expectations and well below the 12% decline in fiscal 2015. We continue to expect that the annual decline in the global ASP for handsets shipped, during fiscal 2017, will further moderate as compared to fiscal 2016, despite FX headwinds. You may recall that a few years ago we forecast that global handset ASP would go through a period of accelerated erosion for a couple of years, and then those declines would moderate overtime. We are seeing those trends play-out as we predicted. We expect total reported device sales from licensees in the second fiscal quarter to be approximately $74 billion to $82 billion, up approximately 24% sequentially and 11% year-over-year at the mid-point, driven primarily by the busy holiday December quarter shipment activity, and reflective of increased licensing and compliance progress.
In our data center business, we achieved a key milestone as we announced the commercial standpoint and conducted a live demonstration of the world's 10 nanometer server processor. And early customer feedback and testing have been encouraging. As the first in the QUALCOMM Centriq product family, the QUALCOMM Centriq 2400 series has up to 48 cores, and is built on the most advanced 10 nanometer FinFET process technology. It features the QUALCOMM Falkor CPU, QUALCOMM data center technologies, custom RMVA compliance core, which is highly optimized to deliver both high performance and power efficiency, and designed to tackle the most common data center workloads. In China, we also have made great progress with our data center joint venture, which is now busy developing a customized server CPU product based on our technology and designs for the China market. Although, we have several ongoing challenges to our licensing program, we are confident in our positions. And we believe we will come out of these challenges stronger as a Company in the end as we have done many times in the past. That concludes my comments. And I will turn the call over to George.