On October 13, 2026, a Delaware jury awarded Qualcomm $2 in nominal damages in its licensing dispute with Arm, Reuters reported. The award covered two claims, while separate royalty and negotiation questions remained for U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika. The verdict followed the Delaware contract trial whose start NeoTeo covered earlier.
What the $2 award covered
Reuters reported that the jury found Arm breached its obligation to provide software patches and tools for its designs, and found for Arm on five other breach allegations. It also reported that the jury found intentional and negligent interference with Qualcomm’s business relationship with Meta.
Reuters described $1 in nominal damages for the breach claim and a single $1 award for the interference claim. Together, the two awards made up the $2 total. Reuters characterized the damages as nominal, rather than a substantial recovery of the royalties at issue.
How Qualcomm and Arm described the verdict
In its October 13 statement, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. said the jury found Arm breached its Architectural License Agreement with Qualcomm and intentionally acted to disrupt Qualcomm’s business. Qualcomm’s statement presented the outcome as a win for the company.
Arm’s October 13 statement emphasized a different part of the mixed result: it said the jury found in its favor on four claims and awarded $1 on each of Qualcomm’s other two claims. Arm characterized the verdict as confirmation that it had acted in good faith. Arm’s statement also acknowledged the $2 total.
What remained for the judge
Reuters reported that Judge Maryellen Noreika still had to decide whether a licensing clause could allow Qualcomm to stop paying royalties to Arm for five years. The possible royalty consequences were described as worth billions of dollars; that issue was separate from the jury’s award. Arm argued that the five-year clause was unenforceable.
The judge also had to address Qualcomm’s argument that Arm failed to negotiate in good faith over its next-generation technology, Reuters reported. Reuters’ account of the verdict and remaining issues described both as matters still before the court after the jury decision.
