A Delaware jury has delivered its verdict in the second trial of the chip industry's most bitter legal feud — ruling that Arm Holdings breached its licensing agreement with Qualcomm, and that it interfered with Qualcomm's relationship with Meta Platforms. The award: two dollars.
A breach worth $2
The jury found Arm breached its long-standing Architectural License Agreement (ALA) with Qualcomm by withholding software patches and tools for its chip designs. But it ruled for Arm on five other breach allegations.
That split verdict came with nominal damages of just $2 — a token sum that lets Qualcomm claim the legal point while denying it any meaningful financial win.
The verdict followed a five-day trial last week, the second clash between the two companies in two years. Jurors had failed to reach a decision after four hours of deliberation on Friday, October 9, and returned on Tuesday to settle the case.
Shares of Arm fell 1% after the verdict; Qualcomm's rose 1%, though the stock had climbed about 2.4% before the decision erased part of the gain.
The Meta deal at the center of it all
The jury's interference finding centered on Qualcomm's relationship with Meta. Qualcomm told the court it had been on the cusp of closing an agreement with Meta in 2024 when Arm allegedly leaked word to Bloomberg News that Qualcomm had breached a licensing agreement.
That disclosure, Qualcomm said, delayed the Meta deal.
The verdict underscores how far the relationship between the two companies has fallen since SoftBank Group took control of Arm in 2016.
Arm has since shifted from purely licensing the technology needed to make chips toward selling chips of its own — a pivot that has put it on an increasingly direct collision course with some of its biggest licensees.
Both chief executives, Qualcomm's Cristiano Amon and Arm's Rene Haas, testified during the proceedings, and the license at issue runs through 2033.
Both sides declare victory
Qualcomm said in a statement that it was "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."
Arm countered: "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."
It added that "its award of only two dollars confirms the merit of Arm's arguments in the case."
Key issues remain unresolved. A related bench-trial decision on good-faith claims is still pending, and neither side has signaled whether it will appeal — leaving the door open to yet another chapter in silicon's messiest breakup.
By Hamza Faisal
