A Delaware jury has found Arm Holdings breached its licensing agreement with Qualcomm and deliberately interfered with the chipmaker’s business relationship with Meta Platforms. Yet the verdict delivered only a symbolic victory in monetary terms, with damages set at just $2.
The decision followed a five-day trial, marking the second courtroom battle between the two technology companies in two years. The dispute reflects a deepening breakdown in their relationship, particularly after SoftBank Group took control of Arm in 2016 and the company began moving beyond technology licensing towards selling its own chips.
The jury found that Arm violated its obligations to provide software patches and tools for its chip designs. However, it sided with Arm on five other alleged breaches of the licensing agreement.
Jurors also concluded that Arm had intentionally and negligently interfered with Qualcomm’s business relationship with Meta. Qualcomm alleged that it was close to securing a deal with Meta in 2024 when Arm purportedly disclosed to Bloomberg News that Qualcomm had violated a licensing agreement. According to Qualcomm, the disclosure delayed the potential deal.
Despite finding in Qualcomm’s favour on these claims, the jury awarded just $1 for each, leaving the financial consequences of the dispute largely unresolved.
Both companies claimed support from different aspects of the verdict. Qualcomm said the findings confirmed that Arm had violated its longstanding Architectural License Agreement and deliberately disrupted its business interests.
Arm, meanwhile, argued that the outcome validated its conduct under the licensing arrangements, pointing to the nominal damages awarded despite Qualcomm’s pursuit of billions of dollars in potential financial consequences.
The dispute will now move into another phase before US District Judge Maryellen Noreika, who must settle several outstanding issues.
One of the most consequential questions is whether Qualcomm could stop paying royalties to Arm for five years because of the breach. Such a ruling could be worth billions of dollars to Qualcomm. Arm has challenged the enforceability of the contractual provision that would allow the royalty suspension.
The jury’s finding on business interference could also strengthen Qualcomm’s position in a separate dispute over negotiations for Arm’s next generation of technology. Qualcomm has argued that Arm failed to negotiate in good faith, an issue that remains for the judge to resolve.
The financial stakes therefore extend well beyond the jury’s $2 award. The forthcoming decisions could determine whether Qualcomm gains substantial relief under its licensing agreement and how the two companies approach their future business relationship.
Further appeals are also likely, depending on how the remaining disputes are decided.
