Qualcomm and Arm have offered contrasting interpretations of a US jury verdict in their ongoing legal dispute over technology licensing, with Qualcomm claiming Arm breached its contractual commitments and Arm maintaining that the jury largely ruled in its favour.
In a statement released on 13 October, Qualcomm said a jury in a US district court found that Arm had failed to honour its long-standing Architectural Licence Agreement (ALA) and had intentionally acted to disrupt Qualcomm’s business operations.
The decision marks a critical development in the dispute between the semiconductor companies over custom central processing unit (CPU) architectures, licensing rights and the deployment of advanced silicon designs.
Qualcomm described the outcome as a victory for innovation and competition, arguing that it reinforced the company’s technology roadmap and its commitment to developing advanced semiconductor products.
“Together with Qualcomm’s prior court victory, this outcome further exposes Arm’s broader intentions to harm Qualcomm and its ecosystem,” the company said.
Qualcomm added that it remained focused on developing and delivering its semiconductor products, including its Oryon CPUs, to customers and consumers worldwide.
Arm, however, disputed Qualcomm’s characterisation of the verdict, saying the jury found in its favour on four claims and awarded only US$1 in damages on each of Qualcomm’s other two claims.
“Despite Qualcomm’s pursuit of this case in an attempt to deprive Arm of billions of dollars under our licence agreements, the jury’s verdict confirms that Arm operated in good faith under its technology licence agreement and its award of only two dollars confirms the merit of Arm’s arguments in the case,” Arm said.
The opposing statements highlight the continuing disagreement between the companies over their contractual obligations and the implications of the legal battle for their respective businesses.
While Qualcomm presented the outcome as a setback for Arm and a boost for competition, Arm maintained that the jury’s findings supported its position that it had acted in good faith under its technology licensing agreement.
