高通在 Arm 诉讼中赢得关键指控，但赔偿总额仅 2 美元

On Oct. 13, a federal jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware delivered a verdict in favor of Qualcomm. The jury found that Arm breached its Architectural License Agreement and intentionally interfered with the commercialization of Qualcomm’s custom Oryon CPUs. While the jury awarded Qualcomm just $1 on each claim, U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika must still decide Qualcomm’s requested remedy that could allow it to suspend royalty payments to Arm for up to five years.

“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,” said Qualcomm in an official statement. “This outcome is a victory for innovation and competition, and we remain focused on developing and delivering industry-leading semiconductor products including our Oryon CPUs to customers and consumers worldwide.”

The decision is the latest chapter in a four-year legal dispute between two semiconductor companies, ensuring that Qualcomm can proceed with marketing its custom silicon across smartphones, AI personal computers, and automotive platforms without the threat of legal injunctions or compulsory design destruction.

By finding Arm liable for contractual interference, leaking the 2024 license-termination warning letter, and failure to meet support commitments by withholding software patches and chip testing tools, the ruling stabilizes chip availability for major device manufacturers while shifting legal and financial pressure back onto Arm.

By SiTime, Micro Crystal, Abracon, ECS Inc. International, Kyocera AVX  10.19.2026

By YMIN  10.19.2026

By Hynetek Semiconductor Co., Ltd.  10.15.2026

“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,” Arm said in its official statement. “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 and its award of only $2 confirms the merit of Arm’s arguments in the ‌case.”

Technical distinction driving the conflict

At the center of the conflict between Arm and Qualcomm is a fundamental distinction in how intellectual property is commercialized within the semiconductor industry. Arm operates as an architectural IP licensor rather than a silicon manufacturer. The firm defines the instruction set architecture (ISA), establishing rules governing how software instructions interact with computing hardware.

To monetize this technology, Arm offers two primary licensing structures: technology license agreements (TLA) and architecture license agreements (ALA). Under a TLA, a customer purchases off-the-shelf core designs, such as Arm’s standard Cortex series, and integrates them into a system-on-chip in exchange for licensing fees and per-unit royalties.

Under an ALA, the licensee pays for access to the underlying instruction set architecture, granting the right to engineer custom CPU cores, provided those cores maintain software compatibility. 

Historically, Qualcomm relied on its TLA with Arm. However, as computational demands increased, Qualcomm sought to develop custom cores to improve energy efficiency and performance.

In early 2021, Qualcomm acquired Nuvia, a silicon startup founded by veteran chip architects holding an ALA with Arm tailored to data center processors. Qualcomm integrated Nuvia’s engineering team and designs into its roadmap, leading to the development of the custom Oryon CPU architecture.

Four years of cross-litigation 

The transfer of Nuvia’s design work into Qualcomm’s product portfolio sparked strong resistance from Arm. In March 2022, Arm terminated Nuvia’s license and demanded that Qualcomm destroy all design files derived from Nuvia’s work. Arm asserted that its licensing frameworks prohibited transferring custom designs between distinct corporate entities without explicit consent and renegotiated terms.

When Qualcomm declined to destroy the technology, maintaining that its overarching license covered the development and commercialization of the Oryon cores, Arm filed a lawsuit in Delaware District Court in August 2022. Arm alleged breach of contract and trademark infringement, seeking an injunction to force Qualcomm to halt production of chips containing Nuvia-derived technology.

That initial phase of litigation concluded in legal victories for Qualcomm. In December 2024, a Delaware jury determined that Qualcomm’s custom CPU technology was properly licensed under Qualcomm’s existing ALA and that Qualcomm had not breached the Nuvia contract. On Sept. 30, 2025, the presiding judge issued a final judgment, affirming those jury findings and dismissing Arm’s remaining claims as a matter of law. Arm subsequently filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, where the matter remains pending.

While defending against Arm’s claims, Qualcomm launched its own offensive in April 2024, alleging that Arm breached both licensing agreements by failing to deliver technical support, failing to provide reasonable licensing terms, and improperly interfering with Qualcomm’s customer relationships.

The conflict escalated in October 2024 when Arm issued a formal notice threatening to terminate Qualcomm’s overarching ALA entirely—a move that threatened to halt global production of Qualcomm’s Snapdragon processors. Arm withdrew the notice in January 2025, but Qualcomm incorporated the incident into its allegations of bad-faith conduct, leading to the October 2026 trial in Wilmington, Delaware. 

The jury’s decision followed a five-day trial in which jurors evaluated licensing terms and corporate communications between the two companies. After receiving the case on Oct. 9, 2026, the jury returned its verdict on Oct. 13, finding Arm liable for breaching the “Architectural License Agreement” governing how Qualcomm uses Arm’s architecture to build custom processor designs. 

However, the jury sided with Arm on five of the six breach-of-contract allegations, rejecting Qualcomm’s claims that Arm had violated those specific terms of its technology license agreement.

Financial pressure and win for open standards such as RISC-V

Beyond confirming Qualcomm’s right to commercialize its custom silicon, the October 2026 verdict introduces financial uncertainty for Arm. During the trial, proceedings highlighted a contractual provision that could permit a licensee to suspend royalty payments for five years if Arm commits a material breach.

As of today (Oct. 19), the judge has yet to rule on whether a specific contractual clause—which could allow Qualcomm to entirely cease paying royalties to Arm for a period of five years due to Arm’s material breach of the agreement—is legally enforceable.

If enforced, the financial consequences for Arm could be substantial. Qualcomm represents one of Arm’s largest revenue sources, accounting for approximately 10% of Arm’s total global revenue for fiscal year 2024. A five-year hiatus on royalty collections from Qualcomm would reduce Arm’s cash flows, impacting research funding and market valuation expectations following Arm’s initial public offering in September 2023.

For original equipment manufacturers, the verdict provides operational certainty. Handset makers such as Samsung Electronics, alongside personal computer manufacturers deploying Snapdragon 8 Elite processors and Oryon CPUs, can continue hardware production without risk of supply chain disruptions.

At the same time, the legal battle has altered industry perceptions regarding proprietary architecture licensing. Arm’s willingness to engage in litigation against its premier customer has encouraged semiconductor designers and cloud operators to accelerate investments in open instruction set architectures, such as RISC-V, to mitigate long-term risks.

For now, the Delaware verdict establishes Qualcomm’s legal authority to deploy its custom silicon, reshaping commercial boundaries across the technology sector.

See also:

Twists and Turns as Qualcomm Wins Arm Legal Case, Arm Shares Rise

Arm, Qualcomm Case Goes to Court Over Arm Architecture Licenses

Arm Sues Qualcomm Over Nuvia Licenses

ARM-QUALCOMM CASE, INSTRUCTION SET ARCHITECTURE, IP (INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY), RISC-V, SEMICONDUCTOR, SUPPLY CHAIN AND DISTRIBUTION

ARM, NUVIA, QUALCOMM