A Delaware jury is hearing Qualcomm’s claim that Arm breached a licensing agreement. Arm denies wrongdoing, and the allegations remain before the court.
A five-day trial in Delaware began on October 5 in a lawsuit brought by Qualcomm against Arm. Qualcomm alleges that the chip-design company breached contractual licensing obligations and seeks damages. A jury is hearing part of the dispute, while a judge will consider another claim separately.
Qualcomm says Arm failed to provide processor testing tools that it believes were required under an existing licence. The company says it developed its own tools at its expense. Qualcomm argues internal Arm documents show the tools were withheld to pressure it into a more expensive agreement. Arm denies breaching the contract.
Qualcomm also alleges that Arm gave Bloomberg an unsubstantiated claim that Qualcomm was developing and selling unlicensed processors and threatened to terminate existing licences. Qualcomm says potential customers were deterred because they feared litigation. Arm disputes liability and argues the claimed commercial harm is speculative. Arm’s counterclaim says Qualcomm itself disclosed non-public details of a competition investigation to the media.
Qualcomm seeks damages and a contractual penalty that it says could suspend royalty payments for 2023 through 2027. The amount could reach billions of dollars, according to the company’s claim. No finding or award has established that Arm breached the agreement or that Qualcomm is entitled to that remedy.
The current case is separate from an earlier licensing dispute over Nuvia designs. Qualcomm acquired Nuvia in 2021. In 2025, a court ruled that Qualcomm could rely on its own architecture licence for the acquired processor designs. Arm appealed. The new case concerns alleged failures to provide contractual support and alleged interference with business relationships, not a rehearing of the design-transfer issue.
A judge will separately consider Qualcomm’s claim that Arm delayed negotiations over licences for standard Cortex cores, including the A520, A720 and M55, and later proposed unacceptable terms and high rates. The court must assess the contract, the alleged failure to provide tools and the claimed business losses. The parties’ allegations are not findings of fact.