A federal jury in Delaware found on October 13, 2026, that Arm breached its architecture license agreement with Qualcomm and unlawfully interfered with Qualcomm's business relationship with Meta. However, the damages awarded to Qualcomm came to just $1 for each finding, $2 in total.
That small sum does not mean the dispute between the two companies is over. The judge still has to rule on Qualcomm's request for a five-year suspension of royalty payments, among other matters. What matters most about this verdict is the question it put at the center of the case: under a contract that permits custom CPU design, how much must Arm provide in the way of tools and technical support for that development? It is a question that bears directly on real-world chip development.
What the $1 awards say about who won
In the October 13 verdict, the jury found that Arm breached its obligations under the architecture license agreement (ALA) and interfered with Qualcomm's dealings with Meta. On the other hand, Arm prevailed on claims concerning certain provisions of the technology license agreement (TLA) and the terms on which related intellectual property (IP) was to be offered.
Sorting paragraphs 1 through 7 of the judgment entered on the verdict by the contract and conduct at issue, the results fall into four broad groups. The ALA and TLA cover different technologies and rights.
| Claim | Finding | Damages awarded |
|---|---|---|
| Obligation to provide ACKs and OOBs under ALA Section 5 | Arm found in breach | $1 |
| Interference with the relationship between Qualcomm's product-business subsidiary and Meta | Both intentional and negligent interference found | $1 total |
| Three specified TLA provisions on the Hunter, Hayes and Yamin CPU cores | No breach by Arm found | None |
| Implied covenant of good faith over reasonable offer terms for GIC-700, MMU-700 and ELA-600 | No violation by Arm found | None |
This table classifies the claims addressed in the verdict. It does not show who won every legal dispute between the two companies. Regarding Meta in particular, the jury found both intentional and negligent interference, but the damages were not counted twice and were set at $1 in total. Adding the $1 for the ALA breach brings the total to $2.
In an official statement, Qualcomm said the jury recognized that Arm failed to honor its contractual commitments and tried to interfere with Qualcomm's business, and it described the result as a win for innovation and competition. Arm, in its statement, said it prevailed on four claims and that damages on the remaining two were just $1 each.
The two companies are each emphasizing the parts of the same verdict that favor them. Qualcomm stresses the finding that Arm breached the contract, while Arm points to the claims that were rejected and the small damages. Neither statement alone captures the final outcome of the litigation as a whole.
Beyond the right to design custom CPUs: the technical support behind development
In a July 2026 disclosure, Arm explains the difference between the ALA and the TLA. The ALA is a contract for designing custom CPUs that conform to Arm's instruction set architecture (ISA). The TLA, by contrast, is a contract for using CPU cores and other technical designs created by Arm.
An instruction set architecture is the common specification that defines the types of instructions software can have a CPU execute, and how they behave. Companies developing custom CPUs build processors that operate according to this specification while adding their own innovations to the internal structure. Qualcomm's Oryon is also a custom CPU that conforms to Arm's instruction set.
In developing such CPUs, a company must confirm that the processor it has designed correctly complies with the common specification. Section 2.1 (page 16) of Arm's public manual describes a mechanism for verifying conformance to Arm's specifications by using a virtual platform suited to validating CPU implementations together with the Architecture Compliance Kit (ACK). Even where custom CPU design is permitted, conformance of the finished CPU to the common specification must be checked separately.
In this verdict, the jury found that Arm's failure to provide ACKs and OOBs amounted to a breach of ALA Section 5. Reuters described the items at issue as design patches and tools.
The key point is that the right to design a CPU independently and the right to receive the technology and tools needed for that development are treated as separate issues. The ruling goes into whether Arm properly provided the development support promised under the contract. That said, the judgment does not reveal the specifications of individual OOBs or patches.
Holding an ALA also does not make a TLA unnecessary. According to Arm's disclosure, even companies that design custom CPUs may use Arm-designed CPU cores to complement their own CPUs or for other chips where a custom design is not suitable. In other words, the ALA and TLA can coexist.
There is therefore no contradiction in Qualcomm's position being upheld on the obligation to provide support for custom CPU development while Arm won on the TLA claims about individual CPU cores.
From a technology-development standpoint, the significance of the verdict is that it found contractual obligations to provide the technology and tools supporting a design, not merely to permit the design itself. However, this is a judgment based on the specific contract the two companies signed, and it does not mean the same support obligations apply to every Arm license.
How this differs from the earlier lawsuit over Nuvia
Arm and Qualcomm have long fought in court over CPU design licensing. But this case differs in its issues from the earlier litigation that began with the acquisition of Nuvia.
Nuvia signed an ALA with Arm in 2019 and was acquired by Qualcomm in March 2021. Arm argued that its consent was required to transfer Nuvia's license to Qualcomm, and sued in 2022.
According to the reasoning of the September 30, 2025 ruling, Qualcomm had held its own ALA since 2013. A jury in December 2024 found that use of the technology in question was permitted by Qualcomm's own contract. The jury did not reach a unified conclusion on Nuvia's own breach of contract, and in September 2025 the district court ruled in favor of Qualcomm and Nuvia.
The lawsuit that led to this verdict, by contrast, was filed by Qualcomm on April 18, 2024. According to Qualcomm's disclosure, the company claimed from the outset that Arm was not providing what it was obligated to provide under the contract. Claims over a license termination notice and over offers of terms under the TLA were added later, and in 2026 a suit against an Arm business subsidiary was consolidated with the case.
In short, the earlier litigation mainly asked whether Qualcomm had the right to use Nuvia-derived technology. This case centered on whether Arm had fulfilled the obligations set out in its contracts with Qualcomm.
This trial was not a redo of the December 2024 verdict. Arm has also appealed in the earlier litigation, and its July 2026 disclosure says proceedings are continuing. A favorable district court ruling for Qualcomm does not mean all legal disputes between the two companies have ended.
Will the five-year royalty suspension be granted?
One of the biggest points to watch is whether Qualcomm will be allowed to suspend royalty payments for five years.
According to Reuters' October 13 report, Judge Maryellen Noreika must decide, in light of the finding of breach, whether Qualcomm can stop paying royalties to Arm for five years. Arm argues that this suspension clause in the license agreement is not legally enforceable.
In an order dated September 8, the court had already indicated that the judge would hear evidence and decide whether the clause providing a five-year royalty exemption is legally enforceable.
This contractual remedy is a separate matter from the $2 in damages the jury awarded. The $2 is the amount recorded in the judgment for Arm's breach and its interference with business dealings. Setting that figure did not settle the validity of the royalty suspension clause or the conditions for its application.
Nor can one conclude, simply because the damages are small, that Arm's conduct had no economic impact. The judgment records $1 for each finding, but it does not explain why the jury chose those amounts. To judge the effect on future royalty income, one will need to look at the judge's ruling on the suspension clause, along with its scope and duration.
Reuters also reports that whether Arm negotiated in good faith over license terms for next-generation technology is also left to the judge.
This is a separate issue from the claims over the terms for offering specific IP such as GIC-700, on which Arm prevailed. Arm's win on some good-faith claims does not mean all of its negotiations over next-generation technology were found to be appropriate.
Arm's move into chips makes the Meta relationship more important
The verdict also found that Arm unlawfully interfered with Qualcomm's dealings with Meta. Arm's own shift in business strategy is hard to overlook in considering this issue.
In an official announcement on March 24, 2026, Arm said it would produce its own mass-produced semiconductor products for the first time, unveiling the "Arm AGI CPU" for data centers. Meta is positioned as a lead partner and co-developer of this product.
Arm has traditionally centered its business on licensing CPU designs and related technology to other companies. With the launch of the Arm AGI CPU, however, it has also begun supplying semiconductor products it designed itself.
This change ties two issues more closely together than before: technical support under license agreements, and winning customers in the semiconductor market. Arm is now both a source of technology supporting its customers' CPU development and a company that supplies its own chips.
In that sense, the finding of interference with the Meta relationship goes beyond a question of contract performance. It also matters for how companies that hold Arm licenses can pursue business with their own customers.
However, the verdict does not allow a conclusion that Arm's past interference led to Meta's adoption of the Arm AGI CPU. What Reuters reports is the background that Qualcomm had claimed negotiations with Meta in 2024 were delayed after a license breach notice from Arm was leaked.
A direct causal link has not been established between the interference found at trial and the joint development between Arm and Meta announced in 2026. It is important not to conflate the two.
As Qualcomm advances custom CPUs such as Oryon, its license with Arm matters not just for the right to use designs but increasingly for whether the technology and tools supporting development are properly provided.
The focus now turns to how the court rules on the five-year royalty suspension clause and on negotiations over next-generation technology. At the same time, how Arm actually fulfills its contractual obligations to provide support is likely to be a key factor in whether it can repair its relationship with Qualcomm.