Arm and Qualcomm Each Claim Victory as Jury Awards $2 Despite Breach Finding
A Delaware jury ruled Arm interfered with Qualcomm’s business but awarded only two dollars, prompting both firms to claim victory in the ongoing dispute.
Key points
- Jury found Arm breached licensing agreement and interfered with Qualcomm-Meta deal
- Damages awarded were limited to two dollars, one dollar for each successful claim
- Both companies issued statements claiming the verdict supported their respective positions
A federal jury in Delaware has ruled that Arm Holdings breached its Architectural License Agreement with Qualcomm and intentionally interfered with Qualcomm’s business relationship with Meta. The verdict concludes a five-day trial regarding allegations that Arm withheld software patches and verification tools. Despite finding liability, the jury awarded Qualcomm only two dollars in nominal damages, leading both technology giants to declare victory in this phase of their prolonged legal conflict.
Root cause
Qualcomm accused Arm of violating contractual obligations by withholding essential software patches and processor verification materials, specifically the Arm Compliance Kit. The chipmaker alleged that Arm refused to provide commercially reasonable licensing terms for custom CPU designs. Additionally, Qualcomm claimed Arm deliberately undermined customer relationships by threatening to terminate its architecture license and leaking that notice to Bloomberg News in October 2024. These actions allegedly disrupted negotiations with Meta and other clients.
Attack path
The dispute centres on Arm’s withholding of technical resources and its public communications regarding licensing. Qualcomm argued that the leak of the termination notice to the media caused a delay in closing a deal with Meta. The jury accepted that Arm’s actions constituted intentional interference with Qualcomm’s business dealings. However, on four other claims brought by Qualcomm, the jury sided with Arm, rejecting the broader allegations of wrongdoing. This split decision reflects the complex nature of the licensing terms involved.
Affected versions
The litigation involves specific processor core licenses, including the Cortex-A720, Cortex-A520, and Cortex-M55. Qualcomm alleged that Arm refused to renew licenses for these cores under its Technology License Agreement. The Architectural License Agreement, which permits Qualcomm to develop custom processors compatible with Arm’s instruction set, was also central to the breach finding. No specific software version numbers were cited in the verdict as being directly vulnerable or defective in a technical sense.
Mitigation
- Monitor official statements from both Arm and Qualcomm for updates on licensing terms
- Review existing contracts with chip suppliers for clauses regarding license renewals
- Assess supply chain dependencies on specific processor cores mentioned in the dispute
- Track further legal developments that may impact future technology availability
What it means for organisations
Teams usually review supply chain contracts after such high-profile disputes to identify potential risks. Procurement and legal departments should assess whether current agreements with chip vendors contain similar termination or renewal clauses. Operations managers need to determine if any critical infrastructure relies on the specific processor cores involved. Leadership should be informed of any potential delays in hardware development or supply. It is advisable to diversify suppliers where possible to mitigate reliance on a single source for critical components.
Background: Supply chain attacks
Supply chain attacks in cyber security exploit the trust you place in third-party software components. Attackers inject malicious code into legitimate updates or build pipelines. You receive the payload as if it were benign. Defending requires verifying code origins, isolating build environments and treating all external inputs as hostile.
Read the full guide: Supply chain attacks in cyber security: how they work and how to stop them
What to do and how to stay safe: Arm
- Audit current hardware suppliers for exposure to ongoing licensing disputes
- Verify that vendor contracts include clear terms for technology support and updates
- Monitor industry news for changes in licensing policies that could affect procurement
- Consult legal counsel on the implications of nominal damage awards for future negotiations
General security guidance from the TechSec Observer newsroom. It is not confirmed advice from the organisations named in this story.
Frequently asked questions
Why was the damage award so low?
The jury awarded only two dollars because it found liability for breach and interference but did not agree that Qualcomm suffered substantial financial losses as alleged.
Did the jury rule entirely in Qualcomm's favour?
No, the jury sided with Arm on four of Qualcomm’s claims, while finding in favour of Qualcomm on two specific issues regarding the licensing agreement and business interference.
What specific actions led to the breach finding?
The jury found that Arm breached the agreement by withholding software patches and verification tools, and intentionally interfered with Qualcomm’s business relationship with Meta.
