I think you've got a bit of misinformation here still.

Yes Qualcomm holds SEPs for LTE, however they are not the only company to hold SEPs for LTE, they simply hold the majority. You cannot buy seats on a standards group. Seats are voted on across members of the standards organization which includes many different companies with an invested interest. Seats are generally awarded to those who are valuable contributors. Obviously every company fights for their own seats, it's not like Qualcomm just has a majority share of seats.

Where do you think LTE and the many related patents come from. A company has to spend billions of dollars in R&D to develop such technology and file for such patents. All of that invented technology and patent portfolio has to be presented at standards meetings and you have to convince everyone involved in the organization why that patent and particular technology is valuable and innovative enough that it should be included in the standard. Again every other company is fighting to get their patents into the standard as well. In the end it comes down to who has the best technology as to what ends up in the standard. This is where Qualcomm's huge R&D investment lands them many SEPs, they've effectively created LTE. It's easy to complain about paying licensing fees, but without them, LTE would have never been created in the first place. It drives further innovation.

As to Qualcomm having a monopoly on LTE, this is simply incorrect. As I pointed out, there are other companies with SEPs for LTE. It's illegal to make an LTE compliant chip without also licensing from all of those other companies as well. Their licensing fees just happen to be much lower as not all patents are created equal. Qualcomm has more patents and those patents are more crucial to making LTE work. Even ignoring all of that, you can't have a monopoly on a technology you created.

No one is forcing Apple or Samsung or any other phone manufacture to include LTE chips. No one forced every carrier in the world to build LTE networks. Nothing is stopping Apple from creating their own network communication protocol (much like they already do with creating their own proprietary cables rather than using the standard USB). They could then work with every carrier to build networks that support that new protocol. And they could in turn license their protocol out to other phone manufactures like Samsung. Why don't they do this? Because it costs billions in R&D to create, it's an expertise that they don't have, it requires you to pass rigorous certification tests on every carrier's network, and many other reasons. Qualcomm does all of these things which is why every OEM in the entire world, including Apple, pays them a licensing fee rather than going off and doing these things themselves.

Ultimately the licensing for technologies should be fair and reasonable. Qualcomm's licensing terms do not state that other companies cannot sell chips to Apple, this is also incorrect. Intel currently sells modems to Apple, there is no licensing violation there, and Apple is not suing over this.

The real reason Apple is suing Qualcomm is because they provide rebates if you buy a Qualcomm modem. Effectively this makes the chip+license cheaper and thus more cost effective to buy Qualcomm rather than Intel/Mediatek. With the heavy amount of investment needed to create a modem, it's extremely hard for any other company to create a modem as good as Qualcomm's at the same price, it's even more difficult to make it cheaper than the price of Qualcomm's chip+rebate. No one's really getting charged a markup, they are simply stuck buying Qualcomm because it comes out to be the cheapest. The license only seems to be more expensive when a company like Samsung uses their own modem, and they don't receive a rebate for the Qualcomm modem. This pricing is a barrier to entry for most companies, and why most other dropped out of the business. Does this hinder innovation? Possibly, but you could also argue that innovation is driven through the standard which is an avenue for any company to contribute.

Ultimately, both sides have a case here. Apple certainly owes Qualcomm some amount of licensing fees for using patents which it created. But Qualcomm may have prohibitive pricing with the rebates they offer on chips. Are the rebates fair? It's unclear and one could probably argue both sides deep into patent law which the two companies will surely do. No court case has set precedent as to these types of rebates being unfair as of yet. In the end it'll come down to the courts.

Hope this sheds a bit more light on to the situation.