A Delaware jury has deadlocked in Qualcomm's contract trial against Arm Holdings, extending a courtroom saga with billions of dollars in chip royalties at stake. After deliberating for roughly four hours on Friday without reaching a decision, jurors are scheduled to return on Tuesday, October 13.
The five-day trial, which opened on October 5 before US District Judge Maryellen Noreika in Wilmington, is the second between the two companies in as many years. But where the earlier fight centred on Arm's 2022 lawsuit over Qualcomm's acquisition of start-up Nuvia, this case focuses squarely on alleged contract breaches — and could reshape how chip-licensing deals are priced across the industry.
According to Reuters, Qualcomm accuses Arm of withholding chip-testing tools and other deliverables it says were owed under the companies' Architecture License Agreement. Qualcomm also alleges that Arm leaked to the media its 2024 threat to terminate a vital licence agreement in a way that damaged Qualcomm's chip negotiations with Meta Platforms.
The dispute matters far beyond one lawsuit. Qualcomm designs some of the world's most widely used mobile processors and has pushed into data-centre and AI chips; Arm's instruction-set architecture underpins those designs and most of the industry's. Their commercial relationship, which Qualcomm says runs through 2033, has become the test case for how power is divided between a licensor and its biggest customers.
The $170 million Meta deal at the centre of the case
Qualcomm's attorney, Karen Dunn, told the jury that Qualcomm had been on the cusp of a chip agreement with Meta when Arm notified Qualcomm that it was in breach of its architecture agreement and then allegedly leaked that notification letter to Bloomberg News. Meta, she said, grew concerned that Qualcomm might lose its licence — and by the time Qualcomm secured the deal, its value had fallen by about $170 million. "Delay is costly," Dunn told jurors.
Arm's attorney, Gregg LoCascio, countered that Meta simply shifted its hardware strategy — moving toward AI eyeglasses and away from virtual-reality headsets — and used the moment to renegotiate financial terms. "They were not harmed in the least," he said, calling Qualcomm's claimed injury speculative.
The financial stakes run far wider than one deal. Qualcomm is seeking relief that could allow it to stop paying royalties to Arm — one of its largest licensing relationships — for up to five years, a sum potentially worth billions of dollars. But Judge Noreika is weighing whether to throw out that contractual remedy, which could leave Qualcomm pursuing a far smaller damages claim. A parallel bench trial is separately examining whether Arm negotiated in good faith over the next version of its chip technology.
A relationship unravelling in public
The case — Qualcomm Incorporated et al v. ARM Holdings PLC, C.A. No. 24-490-MN — stems from a complaint Qualcomm filed in April 2024, later expanded through several amendments to allege that Arm attempted to terminate the Architecture License Agreement, publicised that move, and failed to offer technology-licence terms on commercially reasonable prices and terms.
Arm, owned by Japan's SoftBank Group, has denied breaching its contracts and says it intends to defend the claims vigorously. Its own filings acknowledge the risk: Qualcomm accounted for roughly 9% of Arm's total revenue in the financial year ended March 31, 2026. Arm has also pushed back by arguing that Qualcomm leaked non-public details of antitrust probes into Arm to the media.
The broader backdrop is a shifting industry. Arm, which for decades supplied fundamental chip-design technology to Qualcomm, Nvidia and others, has begun selling its own chips — putting it in direct competition with its biggest customers. That structural tension is what makes the Delaware verdict matter: analysts say the outcome could reshape chip-licensing economics and fuel regulatory scrutiny of how Arm prices its technology, just as Qualcomm, Nvidia and others bet on custom silicon for the AI era.
The semiconductor industry's capacity is already running hot. TSMC is on track for a sixth consecutive record quarter on the back of AI infrastructure spending, while memory-chip prices have surged to the point of squeezing even Apple. A verdict that changes who pays royalties, and how much, would ripple through those same supply chains.
What happens next
Jurors resume deliberations on October 13. A verdict for Qualcomm could give the chipmaker years of royalty relief and leverage in future licensing talks; a win for Arm would defend its licensing model at a moment when that model is its primary defence against customer-customers-turned-competitors. Either way, the earlier Nuvia litigation — which Qualcomm largely won in 2024 and remains under appeal — showed these fights tend to escalate, not conclude.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the jury fail to reach a verdict?
After roughly four hours of deliberation on Friday, October 9, the jury deadlocked and was told to return on Tuesday, October 13. Deadlocks in complex contract cases are not unusual when jurors must weigh competing technical and financial evidence.
How much money is at stake in the Qualcomm–Arm dispute?
Qualcomm is seeking a contractual remedy that could let it stop paying royalties to Arm for up to five years — potentially billions of dollars. The judge may limit Qualcomm to a smaller damages claim if she strikes that remedy from the case.
How does the Meta chip deal fit into the case?
Qualcomm claims Arm's public threat to terminate its licence damaged its negotiations with Meta, reducing the value of a chip agreement by about $170 million. Arm says Meta shifted its product strategy and renegotiated terms on its own, and that Qualcomm suffered no real harm.
Is this the first legal battle between Qualcomm and Arm?
No. Arm sued Qualcomm in 2022 over Qualcomm's acquisition of Nuvia, alleging licence breaches; Qualcomm won a key victory in that case in 2024, and it remains under appeal. The current Delaware trial is a separate contract dispute filed in 2024.
