A federal jury in Delaware found on 13 October 2026 that Arm breached its licensing agreement with Qualcomm, but awarded Qualcomm only $2 in damages. Both companies quickly said they had won.
According to Reuters, as reported by CNBC, the jury also found that Arm intentionally interfered with Qualcomm’s business relationship with Meta Platforms. CNBC said the jury awarded “nominal damages of just $2”, according to court records.
What each side says
Arm said in a statement on its newsroom that it was pleased the jury found “for Arm on four claims” and awarded “only one dollar in damages on each of Qualcomm’s other two claims”. Arm said Qualcomm had brought the case in an attempt to deprive it of “billions of dollars” under its license agreements, and that the “award of only two dollars” shows Arm’s arguments had merit and that it “operated in good faith”.
Qualcomm, in a statement on PR Newswire, said the jury found that Arm “breached its long-standing Architectural License Agreement (ALA) with Qualcomm, failed to honor its commitments, and intentionally acted to disrupt Qualcomm’s businesses”. Qualcomm said that, together with what it called its “prior court victory”, the outcome exposes Arm’s wider aim to harm Qualcomm. It called the verdict “a victory for innovation and competition” and said it remains focused on its products, including its Oryon CPUs.
So the total award is $2: $1 on each of the two claims Qualcomm won. No other damages were awarded.
What an ALA is
Arm does not mainly make chips. It designs the instruction set, the basic language a processor understands, and licenses it to companies such as Qualcomm. Most licensees use Arm’s ready-made processor designs. An Architectural License Agreement is a deeper kind of licence: it lets a company design its own processor cores from scratch, as long as they run Arm’s instruction set. Qualcomm uses this kind of licence to build its own Oryon CPUs.
Why $2 can sit alongside a breach finding
Nominal damages are a token sum, often $1, that a court or jury awards when it finds someone broke a legal duty but the winning side has not proved it lost a measurable amount of money because of it. The award is a formal record that a wrong happened, not compensation.
That is why both sides can claim victory. Qualcomm can point to a jury finding that Arm broke the contract and interfered with its business. Arm can point to the jury siding with it on four claims and to an award of $2 in a fight over a business worth billions.
Background
CNBC reported that the verdict followed a five-day trial last week, the second trial between the two companies in two years. According to CNBC, the case reflects a worsening relationship since SoftBank Group took control of Arm in 2016 and Arm moved from only licensing chip technology towards selling chips of its own. CNBC reported that Arm shares fell 1% after the verdict, while Qualcomm shares rose 1%.
What this means
- The money is symbolic. The total award is $2, which tells you the jury did not find measurable financial loss on the claims Qualcomm won.
- The findings still matter. A jury finding that Arm breached the ALA, and, according to Reuters and CNBC, interfered with Qualcomm’s dealings with Meta, gives Qualcomm a record to point to as the companies keep competing.
- The relationship is now openly adversarial. Arm is both Qualcomm’s supplier of core technology and, increasingly, a chip seller in its own right.
Sources
- Arm Newsroom, “Arm welcomes favorable jury verdict in Qualcomm litigation”, 13 October 2026. https://newsroom.arm.com/news/arm-qualcomm-legal-dispute
- Qualcomm via PR Newswire, “Qualcomm Statement on Trial Verdict Win”, 13 October 2026. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/qualcomm-statement-on-trial-verdict-win-302907419.html
- CNBC (Reuters), “Delaware jury awards Qualcomm $2 in damages, finds Arm breached license agreement”, 13 October 2026. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/10/13/delaware-jury-qualcomm-arm-license-agreement.html
