Qualcomm wins Arm breach verdict but jury awards only $2

Delaware jury finds Arm breached its architecture licence and interfered with Qualcomm's Meta relationship, while rejecting most claims

By LineZotpaper

Published14 October 2026

Read Time2 min

A federal jury in Delaware has ruled that Arm breached its contractual obligations to Qualcomm and intentionally interfered with the chipmaker's business relationship with Meta, but awarded Qualcomm just $2 in nominal damages. Both companies declared victory in the latest round of a licensing dispute that could still carry significant financial consequences.

The verdict followed a five-day trial in Wilmington, Delaware, in which Qualcomm accused Arm of violating its Architecture License Agreement (ALA), withholding software patches and processor verification tools, and refusing to offer commercially reasonable licensing terms. Qualcomm alleged that Arm deliberately withheld Arm Compliance Kit verification materials and software patches needed to validate its custom CPUs, and refused to renew licenses for Cortex-A720, Cortex-A520 and Cortex-M55 processor cores under its Technology License Agreement (TLA).

Qualcomm also argued that Arm sought to undermine its customer relationships by threatening to terminate its architecture license and leaking the corresponding notice to the media in October 2024, disrupting negotiations with Meta and causing it to lose contracts. Arm denied any wrongdoing, saying Qualcomm had failed to demonstrate substantial financial losses, and suggested the litigation was an attempt to obtain more favorable licensing terms and avoid billions of dollars in royalty payments.

The jury sided with Qualcomm on two issues: that Arm breached its longstanding ALA, and that it intentionally interfered with Qualcomm's business relationship with Meta. It awarded $1 in damages on each claim. Arm prevailed on four of the six claims submitted to the jury, which included additional allegations of TLA breaches, violations of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, and unfair competition.

"We are gratified that the jury found Arm breached its long-standing Architectural License Agreement with Qualcomm, failed to honor its commitments, and intentionally acted to disrupt Qualcomm's businesses," Qualcomm said in a statement. "Together with Qualcomm's prior court victory, this outcome further exposes Arm's broader intentions to harm Qualcomm and its ecosystem."

The case follows Qualcomm's earlier win in a separate licensing dispute with Arm over CPU cores developed by Nuvia, the chip designer Qualcomm acquired. Qualcomm then sued Arm in the U.S. early this year over the alleged contract breaches.

Analysis

Why This Matters

The verdict could shape how Arm's architecture licensees develop custom CPU designs, potentially without renegotiating terms with Arm.
The dispute sits at the centre of the global semiconductor market, with ripple effects for customers such as Meta that rely on Qualcomm processors.
The $2 award makes the practical financial outcome minimal, but the legal findings could influence future licensing negotiations, appeals and industry behaviour.

Background

Qualcomm and Arm have been locked in litigation for years. Arm previously sued Qualcomm over its acquisition of chip designer Nuvia, a dispute Qualcomm won in the case that led to its custom Oryon CPU line. Qualcomm then brought this action in a U.S. federal court early this year, accusing Arm of breaching their architecture agreement and using threats and leaks to pressure Qualcomm and its customers. Arm maintains that its licences were valid and that Qualcomm used the courts to avoid paying royalties.

Key Perspectives

Qualcomm: Treats the verdict as vindication, arguing it exposes Arm's efforts to harm its business and its ecosystem, and positions the outcome as a win for innovation and competition. Arm: Points to prevailing on four of six claims and to the nominal $2 damages as evidence that Qualcomm failed to prove real financial harm, and continues to argue the case was a bid to secure cheaper licensing terms. Critics and skeptics: The near-symbolic damages suggest the jury was unpersuaded by Qualcomm's claims of significant losses, and the core financial question of what Qualcomm owes Arm in royalties remains unresolved.

What to Watch

Whether either company files post-trial motions or appeals, and whether the $2 award stands.
How the verdict affects ongoing licensing negotiations, including renewal of technology license terms.
Whether other architecture licensees treat the outcome as encouragement to pursue custom designs without renegotiating their agreements.
Any movement in Arm's reported ambitions to become a direct supplier to Meta.

Sources

Qualcomm wins architecture breach verdict against Arm but gets just $2 — Latest from Tom's Hardware