Jury awards Qualcomm just $2 in damages against Arm despite breach verdict
A Delaware jury found Arm breached its agreement with Qualcomm and interfered with business, but awarded only nominal damages, leading both firms to claim victory.
Key points
- A federal jury in Delaware ruled Arm breached its Architectural License Agreement with Qualcomm.
- The jury found Arm intentionally interfered with Qualcomm’s business relationship with Meta.
- Qualcomm was awarded only $2 in total damages, with Arm prevailing on four other claims.
A federal jury in Delaware has awarded Qualcomm just two dollars in damages after finding that Arm Holdings breached its licensing agreement and intentionally interfered with the chipmaker’s business relationships. The verdict concludes a five-day trial in Wilmington, marking the latest chapter in a years-long legal dispute between the two technology giants over intellectual property and royalty obligations.
According to Reuters, the jury determined that Arm violated its Architectural License Agreement by withholding necessary software patches and processor verification tools. The panel also found that Arm acted to disrupt Qualcomm’s commercial dealings with Meta. Despite these findings of breach and interference, the jurors awarded only one dollar in damages for each of the two successful claims, resulting in a total payout of two dollars.
Context and Background
The legal conflict stems from broader tensions between the companies regarding licensing terms and royalty payments. Tom’s Hardware reports that Qualcomm accused Arm of violating the Architecture License Agreement, which permits Qualcomm to develop custom processors compatible with Arm’s instruction set architecture. Qualcomm alleged that Arm withheld Arm Compliance Kit verification materials and software patches required to validate its custom CPU designs.
Qualcomm further claimed that Arm refused to renew licenses for specific processor cores, including the Cortex-A720, Cortex-A520, and Cortex-M55, under its Technology License Agreement. The chipmaker argued that Arm’s actions were not merely contractual disputes but deliberate attempts to undermine Qualcomm’s market position and customer relationships.
Who Is Affected
The immediate impact falls on the corporate strategies of both Arm and Qualcomm, as well as their partners like Meta. Qualcomm alleged that Arm leaked information about a licensing breach to Bloomberg News in October 2024, while Qualcomm was nearing a deal with Meta. This disclosure reportedly caused delays and disrupted negotiations with Meta and other potential clients.
Arm denied any wrongdoing, arguing that Qualcomm failed to demonstrate substantial financial losses from these actions. According to Engadget, Arm stated in a public statement that the lawsuit was an attempt by Qualcomm to avoid paying billions of dollars in royalties under existing agreements. The jury sided with Arm on four additional claims brought by Qualcomm, further splitting the verdict.
What should you do?
Security and technology professionals should monitor this case for implications regarding supply chain stability and licensing compliance. The ruling highlights how contractual disputes over software patches and verification tools can impact hardware development timelines. Companies relying on complex licensing agreements should review their own contracts for clarity on deliverables and dispute resolution mechanisms.
What to do and how to stay safe: Qualcomm
- Review internal licensing agreements for clauses regarding software patch delivery and verification tool access.
- Monitor legal developments for potential changes in vendor relationships or supply chain disruptions.
- Assess contractual risk exposure with key technology partners, especially regarding royalty obligations.
- Ensure procurement teams are aware of ongoing litigation that could affect product availability or support.
Step-by-step guide: Mobile Device Security: How to Protect Data Beyond Passwords
General security guidance from the Threat Times newsroom. It is not confirmed advice from the organisations named in this story.
Frequently asked questions
Why did Qualcomm only receive $2 in damages?
The jury found that while Arm breached the agreement and interfered with business, Qualcomm failed to prove substantial financial losses, resulting in nominal damages of one dollar per successful claim.
Did the jury rule entirely in favor of Qualcomm?
No, the jury sided with Qualcomm on two claims regarding breach of contract and interference, but ruled in favor of Arm on four other claims.
What specific actions did the jury find Arm guilty of?
The jury found that Arm breached its Architectural License Agreement by withholding software patches and tools, and intentionally interfered with Qualcomm’s business relationship with Meta.
