Qualcomm has won two claims against Arm in a Delaware court, collecting a princely $2 while both companies proclaimed victory.
According to Notebookcheck the jury found Arm breached its licensing agreement and intentionally interfered with Qualcomm’s business relationship with Meta Platforms. After a five-day trial, it awarded nominal damages of $1 for each successful claim.
The verdict gave both corporate publicity departments enough ammunition to declare success, although neither company has finished fighting. Arm shares fell about a per cent after the decision.
Jurors found Arm failed to provide software patches and tools for its designs. They rejected other breach allegations, leaving Qualcomm with findings it can use during the next phase.
Qualcomm welcomed the finding that Arm breached its Architectural License Agreement, failed to honour commitments and deliberately disrupted its businesses.
In a statement, Qualcomm said: “Together with Qualcomm’s prior court victory, this outcome further exposes Arm’s broader intentions to harm Qualcomm and its ecosystem. The company added it remained focused on delivering semiconductor products, including its Oryon CPUs.
Arm issued its own celebratory statement, stressing that the jury found in its favour on four claims. It argued that the tiny damages award supported its position that it had acted in good faith.
Arm said: “Its award of only two dollars confirms the merit of Arm’s arguments in the case.”
The dispute concerns an agreement that allows Qualcomm to use Arm’s processor architecture, with Qualcomm’s licence running until 2033. Relations have deteriorated since SoftBank acquired control of Arm in 2016 and Arm expanded into developing chips.
US District Judge Maryellen Noreika must now resolve remaining disputes, including arguments concerning negotiations for Arm’s next technology version. Qualcomm can use the interference finding to support its claim that Arm refused to negotiate in good faith.
Qualcomm is pursuing a contractual provision that could let it suspend royalty payments for five years, potentially worth billions of dollars. Arm argues that the royalty penalty is unenforceable.
