Jury Finds Arm Breached Qualcomm’s License, Awards $2

A federal jury in Delaware found on 13 October 2026 that Arm breached its architecture license agreement with Qualcomm and interfered with Qualcomm’s business relationship with Meta. It awarded Qualcomm $2 in damages, $1 on each of the two claims it upheld, according to the verdict form filed with the court. Reuters first reported the verdict.

The jury found for Arm on Qualcomm’s four other claims, including the ones about Arm’s pricing. Both companies welcomed the result. Qualcomm called it “a victory for innovation and competition”; Arm said the $2 award “confirms the merit of Arm’s arguments in the case”.

What the Jury Found

The verdict form put yes-or-no questions to the jury, whose answers had to be unanimous, about two Arm entities: Arm Holdings and Arm Ltd. It found that both breached section 5 of the Architectural License Agreement (ALA) by withholding items the form lists as “OOBs” and “ACK Patches”. For Arm Ltd., it answered yes both before and on or after 8 January 2023.

Reuters reported before the verdict that Qualcomm accused Arm of withholding software patches and tools it was owed under contract.

The jury also found that both Arm entities intentionally and negligently interfered with the economic relationship between Qualcomm Technologies and Meta. On each question it circled both bases the form offered: a consumer-supplier relationship and a competitor relationship.

Reuters reported before the trial that Qualcomm alleges Arm leaked to the media its 2024 threat to terminate a vital license agreement, in a way that damaged discussions for a chip deal between Qualcomm and Meta Platforms.

Two Dollars

The form’s damages lines read $1 for the breach of section 5 of the ALA and $1 for the interference with Qualcomm’s prospective economic advantage. Reuters described the award as nominal damages of just $2. The form tells jurors to leave a damages line blank when they answer no, and the four other damages lines are blank.

The verdict form contains no royalty figure. Reuters reported before the trial that Qualcomm, one of Arm’s largest customers, is seeking to quit paying royalties, potentially worth billions of dollars, to Arm for up to five years.

What the Jury Rejected

The jury answered no, for both Arm entities, on four claims under the Technology License Agreement (TLA) and the implied promise of good faith:

• that Arm failed to investigate the “Previous Best Deal” for the Hunter, Hayes and Yamin implementation cores, under section 8.1(B)(i);
• that Arm failed to offer Qualcomm those cores within 10% of the Previous Best Deal, under section 8.1(B)(ii)(b);
• that Arm breached section 8.1(D) by excluding support and maintenance from its 2024 offer for the three cores;
• that Arm failed to make a reasonable offer for the peripheral IP GIC-700, MMU-700 or ELA-600 that Qualcomm requested.

Reuters had described the 10% term as a pricing safeguard meant to keep Qualcomm’s payments within 10% of the lowest price for Arm’s processor designs.

What Each Side Said

Qualcomm said in a statement: “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.” It added that “together with Qualcomm’s prior court victory, this outcome further exposes Arm’s broader intentions to harm Qualcomm and its ecosystem.”

Arm said in a statement on its newsroom: “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.”

It went on: “Despite Qualcomm’s pursuit of this case in an attempt to deprive Arm of billions of dollars under our license agreements, the jury’s verdict confirms that Arm operated in good faith under its technology license agreement.”

Reuters reported that Arm shares were down 1% following the verdict, while Qualcomm’s rose 1%.

What Comes Next

The court’s minute entry for 13 October says closing arguments in the separate bench trial will take place on 20 October 2026 at 10:00 AM, with 90 minutes split equally between the parties.

Reuters reported on 9 October that the bench trial, decided by Judge Maryellen Noreika, covers whether Arm is negotiating in good faith. It said she had not yet ruled on whether Qualcomm can stop paying royalties for five years if the contract is breached, and that Arm argues that penalty is unenforceable.

Reuters also reported that this was the second trial between the companies in two years, that Arm lost the 2024 trial, and that Qualcomm’s current license runs until 2033. Our 5 October preview of the trial set out what was at stake.

The Structural Read

As we read it, the split matters more than the total: the jury upheld the claims about what Arm withheld and about Meta, and rejected the ones about the offers Arm made.

As we read it, both companies can point to the form: Qualcomm to the breach and interference findings, Arm to the four claims it won and the two dollars.

As we read it, the next date is 20 October, when the minute entry says closing arguments in the bench trial will be heard.

Three Implications

ARM LICENSEES The jury found Arm breached section 5 of the ALA by withholding items it owed; it did not find Arm broke the TLA offer terms it was tested on.

ARM Its statement says the verdict confirms it operated in good faith under its technology license agreement.

INVESTORS Reuters reported that Arm shares were down 1% following the verdict, while Qualcomm’s rose 1%.

The Business Engineer Lens

This story maps onto the Business Engineer framework The Nine Layers of AI.

The framework puts it this way: “It is a layered industrial stack — and at any given moment, the binding constraint sits at a different layer than it did six months ago.”

As we read it, Arm’s licenses sit low in that stack, at chip design, and this case is about the terms on which one of its largest customers gets what the license promises.

What Is Not Established

The verdict form we read is the redacted public version. It does not explain what the “OOBs” and “ACK Patches” are, or why the jury set damages at $1 per claim.

None of the 13 October docket entries we read is a ruling on the five-year royalty-free term, and the jury verdict does not decide the bench trial.

Neither company’s statement says whether it will appeal or ask for a new trial.

The Bottom Line

As we read it, the jury split the case. It found that Arm withheld items owed under the architecture license and interfered with Qualcomm’s Meta relationship, rejected every pricing and good-faith claim, and put the damages for what it found at $1 a claim.

The larger money question, the five-year royalty-free term, was still with Judge Noreika as of Reuters’ 9 October report. The minute entry sets the bench-trial closing arguments for 20 October.