Qualcomm wins its breach case against Arm, and the jury awards $2

The verdict came after a five-day trial in Wilmington, Delaware. Qualcomm put six claims in front of the jury. It won two, and Arm won four, Tom's Hardware reports.

The two claims Qualcomm won:

• Breach of the Architectural License Agreement: the jury found Arm withheld software patches and chip-testing tools that Qualcomm needed to verify its custom Oryon CPU cores, Gizmochina reports.
• Intentional interference with the Meta relationship: the jury found Arm deliberately disrupted Qualcomm's business with Meta.

On each of those, the jury awarded $1 in nominal damages. Nominal damages are a court's way of saying "yes, a wrong happened" without attaching a big price to the harm.

The catch: the claims Arm won include the ones tied to its Technology License Agreement, the separate contract for Arm's ready-made processor designs. Tom's Hardware notes the full jury form wasn't public when it reported, so the exact count on some individual claims still needs confirming.

Qualcomm's complaint, as Tom's Hardware lays it out, had several parts:

• Missing tools: Arm allegedly held back Arm Compliance Kit verification materials, test lists and software patches needed to validate Qualcomm's custom processors.
• Refused renewals: Qualcomm said Arm wouldn't renew licenses for its Cortex-A720, Cortex-A520 and Cortex-M55 core designs on commercially reasonable terms.
• A pricing promise: Qualcomm said Arm broke a commitment that Qualcomm would pay within 10% of the lowest price for Arm's processor designs, according to TIKR, citing Reuters.
• Bad faith and unfair competition: Qualcomm also claimed a breach of the implied covenant of good faith, negligent interference with its business and a violation of California's unfair competition law.

Arm denied all of it. Its lawyers argued that Qualcomm couldn't show real financial losses and was using the lawsuit to get better licensing terms and avoid billions of dollars in royalties. "They were not harmed in the least," Arm told jurors, according to The Star's report on the trial.

This is the part of the case with the most plot.

Qualcomm said it was close to a chip deal with Meta in 2024. Then, it said, Arm leaked to Bloomberg News that it had sent Qualcomm a notice threatening to cancel its architecture license. Qualcomm said that leak delayed the Meta agreement, Engadget reports, citing Reuters.

Tom's Hardware adds that the notice went public in October 2024, and that Qualcomm argued the move was part of an effort by Arm to become a Meta supplier itself. The jury agreed that Arm intentionally interfered with Qualcomm's relationship with Meta.

Both released statements, and both sound happy.

"We are gratified that the jury found Arm breached its long-standing Architectural License Agreement (ALA) with Qualcomm, failed to honor its commitments, and intentionally acted to disrupt Qualcomm's businesses."

That's Qualcomm. It called the outcome "a victory for innovation and competition" and said it stays focused on its Oryon CPUs.

"We are pleased with the jury's decision today finding for Arm on four claims and awarding only one dollar in damages on each of Qualcomm's other two claims."

That's Arm. It said the verdict "confirms that Arm operated in good faith" under its technology license agreement, and that the $2 award "confirms the merit of Arm's arguments in the case."

Picture two teams leaving the same stadium, both holding a trophy. Each one is real. They're just for different events.

The market leaned slightly toward Qualcomm. By the numbers: Arm's shares fell about 1% after the decision and Qualcomm's rose about 2%, Gizmochina reports. Notebookcheck also reports the 1% drop for Arm.

Because the jury was never deciding the big number. US District Judge Maryellen Noreika is.

Qualcomm points to a clause in its contracts. If Arm breaches the agreement, Qualcomm says, it can stop paying Arm royalties for five years. The judge hasn't ruled on that yet, and Arm argues the clause isn't enforceable, Engadget reports.

Why it matters: the jury just found a breach of the architecture license. That's the trigger Qualcomm needed before it could ask for the royalty pause.

The judge also has to decide whether Arm met its duty to negotiate future architecture license terms in good faith. Tom's Hardware says both rulings could matter far more, financially and commercially, than the jury's $2. Either company could appeal a ruling that goes against it.

Big. Arm's annual filing says Qualcomm made up 9% of Arm's $4.92 billion revenue in the fiscal year that ended March 31, 2026, about $443 million, according to TIKR. That includes license fees as well as royalties, so it's not the same as the disputed royalty money.

TIKR also points to a 2013 deal that came up at trial. It caps Qualcomm's royalties at $1.88 per chip for any chip with at least five CPU cores. That price was set long before data center chips carried 288 cores.

In real life Arm doesn't make most of the chips in your devices. It designs the instruction set and many of the core designs, and companies like Qualcomm pay to use them. Every Snapdragon phone or laptop sold carries a small fee back to Arm. That's the money this fight is about.

The companies have been in court for years. Here's the short version:

• 2016: SoftBank takes control of Arm. Since then, Arm has expanded into developing its own chips, and the relationship has worn down, Notebookcheck reports.
• 2022: Arm sues Qualcomm after it buys chip startup Nuvia, arguing Qualcomm didn't get the permission needed to transfer Nuvia's licenses.
• December 2024: a jury finds Qualcomm did not breach Nuvia's license. Engadget reports a court later dismissed Arm's remaining claims, and Qualcomm called it a "complete victory."
• This year: Qualcomm files its own lawsuit against Arm, using information that came out in the first case, Engadget reports, citing Thurrott.
• October 2026: the five-day trial ends with the $2 verdict.

Qualcomm's license with Arm runs until 2033, Notebookcheck reports. The two companies need each other for years to come, whatever the court decides. For more on the chips behind this fight, see what a semiconductor chip is, and our earlier story on Qualcomm's patent deal with Huawei.

• Your devices: nothing changes today. The verdict doesn't stop Qualcomm from making or selling Snapdragon chips.
• Prices: if the judge lets Qualcomm pause royalties, Qualcomm's costs per chip would drop. Whether any of that reaches buyers is a separate question nobody has answered.
• The next ruling: Judge Noreika's decision on the five-year clause is the one that moves real money, and an appeal is possible.