At closing arguments on October 20, Judge Maryellen Noreika heard a separate bench-trial dispute over unfair competition and future licensing, including Arm v10. The October 13 jury judgment awarded $2 across two claims; reports through October 25 described a written ruling on the remaining issues as pending.
The October 20 arguments concerned a separate ruling
The October 20 arguments were part of a bench trial, in which a judge decides the issues, over California unfair-competition allegations and licensing. Bloomberg reported that Noreika appeared reluctant to set future licensing fees. EE Times said the remaining written ruling could take several weeks and described it as pending in its October 23 coverage.
That proceeding was separate from the jury’s October 13 judgment. The jury’s $2 award did not decide Qualcomm’s request for a royalty suspension or settle the future Arm v10 licensing terms.
What the jury’s $2 award covered
The October 13 judgment assigned $1 to each of two claims. The Architectural License Agreement (ALA) is Qualcomm’s agreement at issue in the first claim; the Technology License Agreement (TLA) concerns the separate claims the court decided for Arm.
| Claim | Court finding | Damages |
| ALA, Section 5 | Arm breached the section by withholding ACKs and OOBs before and after January 8, 2023. | $1 |
| Tortious interference involving QTI and Meta | The court found intentional and negligent interference with Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.’s (QTI) economic relationship with Meta. | $1 |
Together, the two awards total $2. The second award was for tortious interference with QTI’s relationship with Meta, not a separate award to Meta.
The judgment also found for Arm on specified claims
The court found for Arm on Qualcomm’s claims under TLA Sections 8.1(B)(i), 8.1(B)(ii)(b) and 8.1(D), concerning the Hunter, Hayes and Yamin cores. It also found no breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing over offers for GIC-700, MMU-700 and ELA-600.
Those findings explain why the judgment was mixed: Qualcomm prevailed on the ALA breach and QTI’s interference claim, while Arm prevailed on the specified TLA and offer-related claims. Arm’s October 13 statement emphasized the claims it won; Qualcomm’s statement highlighted the ALA breach and interference findings.
The requested royalty suspension was not part of the award
Qualcomm separately sought to suspend royalty payments for up to five years. EE Times reported on October 19 that the request was awaiting a decision. It was not included in the jury’s $2 damages judgment, and the separate licensing proceedings also covered future Arm v10 terms.
For background on the separate discussion of future fees, NeoTeo previously examined the reported Arm v10 royalty estimates.
