Qualcomm case against Arm heads toward jury decision on licensing dispute

Qualcomm’s lawsuit against Arm was due to go to a jury on Friday, October 9, in federal court in Wilmington, Delaware, Reuters reported, bringing disputed licensing obligations and alleged interference with Meta Platforms dealings toward a decision. The case concerns support and pricing for technology underlying Qualcomm’s chips, while separate questions about future licensing terms remain unresolved.

The five-day trial is the companies’ second in two years. Reuters’ report anticipates the jury’s consideration of Qualcomm’s claims; it does not establish that deliberations have begun or that a verdict has been reached. Arm disputes Qualcomm’s case and argues that the chipmaker suffered no harm.

What Qualcomm wants the Arm jury to decide

Qualcomm alleges that Arm withheld software patches and design tools it was required to provide under their licensing agreements. It also alleges that Arm violated a pricing arrangement intended to keep Qualcomm’s payments for Arm processor designs within 10 percent of the lowest price, according to Reuters’ courtroom report.

A further claim concerns a 2024 letter in which Arm notified Qualcomm that it was allegedly breaching a key license. Qualcomm alleges that Arm leaked that letter to Bloomberg to undermine Qualcomm’s dealings with Meta. The alleged leak and its intended effect are disputed claims, not findings of wrongdoing.

Qualcomm lawyer Karen Dunn described the company’s reliance on Arm in her opening statement on Monday, saying that “Qualcomm’s entire chip business depends on Arm and on Arm honoring its contract and honoring its promises.” Both companies’ chief executives, Arm’s Rene Haas and Qualcomm’s Cristiano Amon, testified in the proceedings.

Arm licensing terms and royalties remain separate questions

Qualcomm’s license for Arm’s computing architecture runs until 2033, Reuters reported. The broader commercial question is whether the companies can agree terms for newer versions of that architecture. The current license’s remaining term therefore does not resolve the separate dispute over access to future versions.

A related bench trial this week concerned whether Arm was negotiating licensing terms in good faith. US District Judge Maryellen Noreika’s decision on that question could come well after the anticipated Friday jury verdict, according to Reuters. She also oversaw the companies’ earlier trial.

Qualcomm separately asked Noreika before trial to interpret a contract clause as allowing it to stop paying royalties for five years following a breach. Reuters reported that she had not ruled on that request. Arm argues that the proposed royalty penalty is unenforceable; no five-year payment suspension has been established.

How the earlier Qualcomm and Nuvia case ended

The current claims follow a separate case brought by Arm. In its July 2026 filing, Arm dated its original lawsuit against Qualcomm and Nuvia to August 31, 2022. It sought destruction and cessation of use of disputed Nuvia technology after terminating Nuvia’s architecture license in March 2022.

Arm disclosed that the December 2024 jury found the relevant technology licensed to Qualcomm and found no Qualcomm breach of Nuvia’s license. That jury did not resolve whether Nuvia itself had breached the agreement, leaving an issue for the court to address subsequently.

Both companies reported that on September 30, 2025, the court upheld the resolved jury findings and ruled favorably on the remaining Nuvia issue. Qualcomm’s announcement also said the court rejected Arm’s request for a new trial. Those outcomes concerned Arm’s earlier case, rather than the separate Qualcomm claims now being tried.

Arm’s July filing said its appeal was pending at that time. It dated Qualcomm’s separate action to April 18, 2024, with subsequent amendments, and rejected Qualcomm’s assertions. The filing’s appeal disclosure establishes the position in July, rather than an updated appeal status on October 9.

A changing commercial relationship

Reuters places the dispute against a deterioration in relations following SoftBank’s acquisition of control of Arm in 2016 and Arm’s move toward selling chips of its own. Arm’s July filing describes license fees and per-chip royalties as its business model. That commercial context does not establish any contractual breach.

The next reported milestone is the jury’s consideration of Qualcomm’s claims. Decisions on good-faith negotiations and the requested royalty remedy remain separate judicial questions. Reuters’ October 9 account establishes neither a damages award nor changed licensing terms, leaving those outcomes unresolved as the case approaches the jury.