On October 13, 2026, a unanimous jury in Delaware found for Qualcomm on two claims against Arm, and the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware entered judgment totaling $2. The same judgment ruled for Arm on specified other claims, making the result a mixed verdict. Read the court’s judgment.
For background on how the case reached trial, see NeoTeo’s earlier coverage of the trial’s opening in Delaware.
How the damages add up to $2
The judgment awarded $1 to the plaintiffs for breaches of the Architecture License Agreement (ALA) and $1 to Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. (QTI) for tortious interference. Those are two separate awards, not a single $2 award for either claim.
The court found both intentional and negligent interference with QTI’s economic relationship with Meta, but specified one $1 award for tortious interference. It also found that Arm Holdings plc and Arm Limited breached Section 5 of the ALA by withholding ACKs and OOBs before and after January 8, 2023. The judgment does not expand those abbreviations.
The claims each side won
The judgment resolved several distinct groups of claims. It ruled for Arm on specified Technology License Agreement (TLA) claims involving the Hunter, Hayes, and Yamin Cores, as well as on an implied-covenant claim concerning offers for GIC-700, MMU-700, and ELA-600.
| Claim group | Court’s ruling |
| ALA, Section 5 | For Qualcomm: Arm Holdings plc and Arm Limited breached the agreement by withholding ACKs and OOBs before and after January 8, 2023. |
| Interference involving Meta | For QTI: intentional and negligent interference with QTI’s economic relationship with Meta. |
| TLA claims | For Arm on specified claims under Sections 8.1(B)(i), 8.1(B)(ii)(b), and 8.1(D), involving the Hunter, Hayes, and Yamin Cores. |
| Implied-covenant claim | For Arm on the claim alleging failure to make a reasonable offer for GIC-700, MMU-700, or ELA-600. |
Why both companies called the result favorable
Qualcomm described the verdict as a victory for innovation and competition in its October 13 statement. Arm said it prevailed on four claims and highlighted the $1 awards on Qualcomm’s other two claims in its response to the verdict. The judgment’s different outcomes across the claim groups explain how both companies could emphasize favorable parts of the ruling.
