Don’t start the countdown just yet.
Listen, I’m only human and I appreciate a good corporate rivalry as much as anyone. However, legal disputes often end with little resolution—an example of which is the ongoing struggle between Arm, a UK semiconductor design firm, and Qualcomm.
Instead of continuing its battle, Arm has chosen to stop its efforts to scrap Qualcomm’s licensing agreement for chip production based on its technology. This means Qualcomm can maintain its production of the Arm-based Snapdragon X CPUs, bringing some closure to a legal struggle that has persisted since August 2022.
Arm previously sought to end Qualcomm’s architecture license agreement, which if achieved, could’ve spelled trouble for the Snapdragon X line and potentially impacted many PC designs utilizing Microsoft’s Copilot+ AI technology. However, according to Qualcomm’s latest financial report, Arm is shelving its recent legal challenge and has no immediate plans to terminate Qualcomm’s architecture license, while still retaining its rights pending the results of ongoing litigation.
To recap, this conflict traces back to the startup Nuvia, acquired by Qualcomm in 2021. Nuvia had previously entered into an architecture license agreement with Arm, which allowed it to craft custom CPU cores compatible with Arm’s tech, mainly targeting the development of server chips. Qualcomm, a holder of an Arm license as well, became interested in leveraging Nuvia’s design for its Snapdragon products.
Arm alleged that utilizing these designs contradicted Nuvia and Qualcomm’s agreements, leading to a series of legal battles through the years. Most recently, in October 2024, Arm issued Qualcomm a 60-day termination notice but opted to retract that notice in January, leaving the outcome of this affair unclear.
Despite these developments, the matter remains unresolved. Litigations stemming from a jury trial in December 2024 are still proceeding, where Arm claimed substantial losses due to Qualcomm’s practices, yet the jury concluded that Qualcomm did not violate its license agreement as alleged. Both parties are now seeking clarity in light of the jury’s decision, which may lead to further legal disputes down the line. Time will tell.
