Qualcomm v. Arm Trial Due Monday; Royalty-Free Term at Issue

A five-day jury trial in Qualcomm’s suit against Arm Holdings is due to open in Delaware federal court on Monday 5 October 2026. Reuters reports that Qualcomm accuses Arm of withholding chip testing tools that were due under contract and is seeking to quit paying royalties to Arm for up to five years, and that Judge Maryellen Noreika is weighing whether to throw out that term of the contract.

This publication read Reuters’ report as carried by KFGO and the public docket entries and orders on CourtListener. It read no sealed filing or transcript and verified nothing independently.

What Reuters Reports

Reuters, in a report by Tom Hals, Max A. Cherney and Stephen Nellis dated 5 October, says Qualcomm and Arm will be in court on Monday with Qualcomm accusing Arm of withholding chip testing tools that were due under contract. It says Qualcomm also alleges that 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.

Reuters says 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. It says Arm, owned by Japan’s SoftBank Group, has denied that it breached the contract and argued that it did not damage Qualcomm’s chip deals, which it described as speculative. Reuters says Arm has also countered that Qualcomm cannot seek damages for the leak of the termination letter because Qualcomm leaked non-public details of antitrust probes into Arm to the media.

Reuters adds that in a related bench trial Noreika will also hear arguments over whether Arm has negotiated in good faith with Qualcomm for the next version of Arm’s chip technology, and that Qualcomm’s agreement with Arm runs through 2033. It says Arm sued Qualcomm in 2022 alleging that Qualcomm had breached its contracts, and that Qualcomm came away in 2024 with a key victory.

What the Court Record Shows

The CourtListener docket for Qualcomm Incorporated v. ARM Holdings PLC, case 1:24-cv-00490 in the District of Delaware, shows that Qualcomm Incorporated and Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. filed a complaint with a jury demand against ARM Holdings PLC on 18 April 2024, under seal. Jury selection was held on 2 October 2026, and the minute entry for that day says opening statements begin on Monday 5 October.

The court’s order after the pretrial conference, dated 2 October and signed by Judge Noreika, adopts the proposed pretrial order as modified and says a five-day jury trial will begin at 9:30 a.m. Each side is allowed up to thirteen hours for its opening statement, its examinations of witnesses, its closing arguments and argument of evidentiary issues. The order denies Qualcomm’s first motion in limine as moot, reserves ruling on its second and denies its third, and grants in part and denies in part Arm’s first and third, reserving on Arm’s second.

An earlier order, dated 8 September, says the court had considered granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the enforceability, or unenforceability, of “the five-year, royalty-free period provisions in the contracts,” but saw the better course as letting the parties present evidence on the issue at a bench trial. There the court can make credibility determinations that “may allow the Court to decide this issue before the jury trial.” It gave each side three hours to present evidence on the issue.

The same order says the court will allow the plaintiffs to present tortious interference to the jury, and will not hear evidence on what it calls the UCL claim at the bench trial. The docket records bench trial days on 16 and 17 September, and a filing by Qualcomm on 24 September of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding Section 8.3 of the ALA and TLA.

At a status conference on 19 August the court heard arguments on summary judgment and Daubert motions; the minute entry says Qualcomm’s partial motion for summary judgment was denied and that the parties shall mediate the case once more before trial.

What Is Under Seal

Several of the most substantive filings are not public. The docket lists a sealed letter, entered on 4 October, regarding “Qualcomm and Meta’s request to seal courtroom, trial transcripts and admitted trial exhibits during portions of trial.” It also lists a sealed statement by Qualcomm on 1 October titled “Qualcomm’s Proffer on Extrinsic Evidence,” and a sealed statement by Arm on 3 October opposing it. A motion for a Meta Platforms, Inc. attorney to appear pro hac vice is listed on 4 October.

The docket lists a redacted version of the proposed pretrial order (D.I. 951), which this publication did not read.

The Structural Read

The sources split the case between different decision-makers. Reuters describes the Monday jury trial as Qualcomm accusing Arm of withholding chip testing tools due under contract and of leaking its termination threat, and the 8 September order says the plaintiffs may present tortious interference to the jury. The enforceability of the royalty-free provisions went to a bench trial, and Reuters says the judge will also hear, in a related bench trial, whether Arm has negotiated in good faith.

The money question is split too. Reuters says the royalties Qualcomm seeks to stop paying are potentially worth billions of dollars over up to five years, and also says the judge’s view of the royalty-free term could limit Qualcomm to a smaller amount of damages. Neither Reuters nor the court record this publication read gives a damages figure.

Much of what the parties filed is not public. The docket lists sealed filings on extrinsic evidence, and a sealed letter entered on 4 October about a request by Qualcomm and Meta to seal the courtroom, trial transcripts and admitted trial exhibits during portions of the trial.

Three Implications

AN ORDER OF DECISIONS The court’s orders put the enforceability of the royalty-free provisions ahead of the jury, with each side given three hours to present evidence at a bench trial that the docket shows ran on 16 and 17 September. The 8 September order says that route lets the court make credibility determinations, which may allow a decision before the jury trial.

WHO IS NAMED Meta Platforms appears in two places. Reuters says Qualcomm alleges that Arm’s leak of its 2024 termination threat damaged discussions for a chip deal between Qualcomm and Meta, and the docket lists a request by Qualcomm and Meta to seal parts of the trial and a pro hac vice motion for a Meta attorney. The material this publication read does not say what role Meta has at the trial.

WHAT REMAINS UNKNOWN The material this publication read contains no damages figure, no ruling on the royalty-free term, no sealed filing and no statement from either company, and no source it read reports a result from the trial.

Related reading: our report on the Huawei and Qualcomm patent licence.

What Is Not Established

This publication has no figure for the damages either side claims. Reuters says only that the royalties are potentially worth billions of dollars, and the filings it could read give no amount. It did not read either company’s own statement, the sealed or redacted filings, or any hearing transcript. It does not know what the jury is told or who prevails.

The docket entries this publication read, through entry 987 on 5 October, show no ruling on the enforceability of the royalty-free period provisions. The court’s 2 October order gives the trial’s start date as October 5, 2023, while the docket’s own minute entry of the same day says opening statements begin on 5 October 2026; this publication reads the 2023 as a typographical error in the order, which is its own reading. It did not seek a response from Qualcomm or Arm.

The Bottom Line

Qualcomm’s suit against Arm is due to go to a five-day jury trial from 5 October. Reuters says Qualcomm accuses Arm of withholding contractual testing tools and seeks to quit paying royalties for up to five years, while Arm denies breach. The court’s own orders show it set the enforceability of the five-year, royalty-free provisions for a bench trial first, and the docket entries this publication read show no ruling on that issue. Key filings are sealed or redacted, and this publication verified nothing independently.