Qualcomm wins legal battle over Arm — chipmaker didn't violate Arm's chip licensing agreement

News
By
published

But Arm could appeal.

Qualcomm logo
(Image credit: Qualcomm)

Qualcomm on Friday won a trial in a dispute with Arm Holdings over allegations it violated terms of its architecture license agreement (ALA) and technology license agreement (TLA) by taking over Nuvia and using its IP in its Snapdragon X processors for client PCs. However, while Qualcomm was found innocent, the jury could not agree on whether Nuvia violated its licensing terms with Arm. Thus, the outcome leaves the door open for a retrial or further negotiations, reports Bloomberg.

The disagreement stemmed from Qualcomm's use of the Armv8-based Oryon cores originally designed by Nuvia for server-class processors, which Arm claimed required renegotiation after the acquisition. After Qualcomm decided to proceed with developing its Snapdragon X processors packing Oryon cores, Arm demanded that Qualcomm destroy the designs because they violated the terms of Nuvia's licenses related to Arm technologies. Qualcomm countered by arguing that its existing ALA for Arm instruction set architecture (ISA) covered products designed by entities it owns—in this case, Nuvia.

Gerard Williams III, one of the lead developers behind Oryon and multiple Apple processors, said that the final design developed by Nuvia contained less than 1% of Arm technology.

The Delaware jury sided with Qualcomm and concluded that its Snapdragon X processors did not violate its licensing deal with Arm. This ensures that Qualcomm can continue selling these products without destroying their blueprints.

"We are pleased with today's decision," a statement by Qualcomm reads. "The jury has vindicated Qualcomm's right to innovate and affirmed that all the Qualcomm products at issue in the case are protected by Qualcomm's contract with Arm. We will continue to develop performance-leading, world-class products that benefit consumers worldwide, with our incredible Oryon Arm-compliant custom CPUs."

However, the jury could not unanimously decide whether Nuvia violated its contract with Arm, which stipulated that Nuvia would build server processors. Thus, neither side achieved a definitive victory, and the unresolved question could lead to a new trial. As a result, Judge Maryellen Noreika asked both parties to mediate.

Qualcomm needs the highly competitive Oryon cores it acquired in 2021, along with its $1.4 billion purchase of Nuvia. The general-purpose cores are competitive with Arm-based designs developed by Apple and x86 processors from AMD and Intel. With Oryon and its successors, Qualcomm can continue its offensive on the PC market, of which it currently holds 0.8% on the heels of its Snapdragon X series processors debuting in June 2024.

On the other hand, about 10% of Arm's revenue—over $300 million in 2023—comes from Qualcomm. Before using its own custom Oryon cores, Qualcomm relied on slightly modified Cortex cores designed by Arm. Qualcomm had to pay more than an ISA license to develop a custom core for these.

See more CPUs News
Anton Shilov
Anton Shilov
Contributing Writer

Anton Shilov is a contributing writer at Tom’s Hardware. Over the past couple of decades, he has covered everything from CPUs and GPUs to supercomputers and from modern process technologies and latest fab tools to high-tech industry trends.

13 Comments Comment from the forums
  • Pierce2623
    I’m mostly curious as to why the article states they’re competivive with Apple, Intel and AMD. The literal only situation where they look good is low TDP multicore. Now tell me who does heavily multithreaded tasks with their laptop turned down to a low TDP. Apple Intel and AMD all have current laptop chips that look like an overall better compromise. Maybe once the inexpensive 8 core variants are available for about $600-$70” they’ll have a more competitive platform. Unfortunately all the inexpensive SKUs have their single core performance neutered to make the top SKUs look better and they won’t even go over their base clock on a single core
    Reply
  • abufrejoval
    It seems hard these days to imagine that a non-American company could get justice from an American jury against a domestic darling.

    Imagine this case in a Japanese (Softbank) or UK court (ARM).
    Reply
  • bit_user
    Pierce2623 said:
    I’m mostly curious as to why the article states they’re competivive with Apple, Intel and AMD. The literal only situation where they look good is low TDP multicore.
    According to this, the X1E-84-100 beats even the top end Lunar Lake (288V) on Cinebench 2024 (ST) by 4.1%. Efficiency-wise, the same matchup shows the Snapdragon delivering 32.2% more points per Watt.
    https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Lunar-Lake-CPU-analysis-The-Core-Ultra-7-258V-s-multi-core-performance-is-disappointing-but-its-everyday-efficiency-is-good.893405.0.html
    If you switch to their Geekbench 6.3 (ST) scores, the 288V squeaks out a 1.1% victory over the X1E-84-100.

    It's more telling that Snapdragon is doing this on an older node (i.e. N4P, while Lunar Lake is on N3B). This should make their next gen very interesting. For me, the main question is whether Qualcomm will be able to implement SVE2, or will ARM refuse to grant them an ARMv9-A architecture license (if they don't already have one)?
    Reply
  • JamesJones44
    Given the mixed ruling they probably come to some kind of settlement on at significantly more competitive price. One or both side could play hardball, but given both these companies history of settling after this kinds of cases, settlement is what I would put my money on (Qualcomm settled with Apple and Softbank settled with WeWork in 2021).
    Reply
  • bit_user
    abufrejoval said:
    It seems hard these days to imagine that a non-American company could get justice from an American jury against a domestic darling.
    I think Qualcomm isn't a household name in the same way as Apple, Microsoft, or even Intel. I doubt most jury member have special feelings for it, and the judge should disallow the defense to appeal to Qualcomm's American identity. I think it even less likely that a typical jury member would know the nationality of ARM or its owner.

    In other words, I think Qualcomm's nationality isn't enough to get them a unanimous verdict.
    Reply
  • abufrejoval
    bit_user said:
    I think Qualcomm isn't a household name in the same way as Apple, Microsoft, or even Intel. I doubt most jury member have special feelings for it, and the judge should disallow the defense to appeal to Qualcomm's American identity. I think it even less likely that a typical jury member would know the nationality of ARM or its owner.

    In other words, I think Qualcomm's nationality isn't enough to get them a unanimous verdict.
    You name the real issue here: "feelings".

    And the tradition focussed jury system was designed to adjudicate cases with local customs and laws in mind where the juror's intimate knowledge of how things really stood between neighbours added value and quality to the decisions made by a court presided by judges much less knowledgable in those aspects.

    It just doesn't make sense in abstact international intellectual property disputes, where most jury members have nothing but their gut feeling to contribute.

    Qualcomm very clearly thought themselves very clever to "buy" Nuvia via licensing fees not paid to ARM. And that is just as clearly a violation of the spirit of ARM's licensing conditions and thus very bad faith business conduct if you've accepted them.

    ARM has segmented its customer market for very good reasons which stem from how they wanted to ensure their economic future. Qualcomm and Nuvia understood those terms when they signed them.

    And while I would subscribe to the idea that once a technology becomes so ubiquitous that "the entire planet runs on it", should even be wrestled from the hands that designed it if it's not voluntarily given (e.g. Chrome by Google), in this case it was just a case of Qualcomm's senior management not liking the numbers on their alternate business case, not ARM abusing its power over an ISA.

    Quite a few Americans seem to love that type of Wild West "move fast and break things" behaviour, because that's how many tycoon fortunes were made.

    As a European from the continent I judge that as the least attractive aspect of a people, some of which have been extremely generous to me personally in the past.

    But those Mid-Western folks just didn't show that musky behaviour exemplified by newly arrived South African immigrants, who are not no longer satisfied with their takeover of the US government and feel compelled to post unwarranted advice on how Europe should be run.

    Again, the real proof in the pudding would be to have this case run through Japanse and British courts and then compare the results.

    Justice clearly isn't blind and carries a flag.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    abufrejoval said:
    It just doesn't make sense in abstact international intellectual property disputes, where most jury members have nothing but their gut feeling to contribute.
    Agreed. There should be a disinterested panel of experts, making these decisions.

    Not all US trials are jury trials, mind you. Any appeal would be decided by a 3-judge panel. Furthermore, if I understand correctly, the case should go to the 13th circuit, which specializes in IP law:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_judiciary_of_the_United_States#U.S._Courts_of_Appeals
    abufrejoval said:
    Quite a few Americans seem to love that type of Wild West "move fast and break things" behaviour, because that's how many tycoon fortunes were made.
    I think that's not a fair characterization, as far as it applies to a jury of ordinary citizens. The trial was held in Delaware, which is a fairly moderate, middle income East Coast state with diverse demographics. Nothing particularly "Wild West" about it.

    abufrejoval said:
    As a European from the continent I judge that as the least attractive aspect of a people, some of which have been extremely generous to me personally in the past.
    There's a selection bias in the Americans you've dealt with. It's not a random sampling, nor does it match the jury pool of this trial.

    abufrejoval said:
    Again, the real proof in the pudding would be to have this case run through Japanse and British courts and then compare the results.
    The Japanese legal system has plenty of its own issues. I can't speak of the civil courts, but they have a > 99% conviction rate against criminal defendants.
    Reply
  • Pierce2623
    bit_user said:
    According to this, the X1E-84-100 beats even the top end Lunar Lake (288V) on Cinebench 2024 (ST) by 4.1%. Efficiency-wise, the same matchup shows the Snapdragon delivering 32.2% more points per Watt.
    https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Lunar-Lake-CPU-analysis-The-Core-Ultra-7-258V-s-multi-core-performance-is-disappointing-but-its-everyday-efficiency-is-good.893405.0.html
    If you switch to their Geekbench 6.3 (ST) scores, the 288V squeaks out a 1.1% victory over the X1E-84-100.

    It's more telling that Snapdragon is doing this on an older node (i.e. N4P, while Lunar Lake is on N3B). This should make their next gen very interesting. For me, the main question is whether Qualcomm will be able to implement SVE2, or will ARM refuse to grant them an ARMv9-A architecture license (if they don't already have one)?
    ARM will grant them any license they want IF THEY PAY UP and quit trying to screw around with licensing.
    Reply
  • abufrejoval
    bit_user said:
    The Japanese legal system has plenty of its own issues. I can't speak of the civil courts, but they have a > 99% conviction rate against criminal defendants.
    Exactly the reason I put it there :-)

    You could add a Chinese, Russian, Indian and Persian court there as well and eventually come up with white noise.

    Which is all meant to highlight that any claim justice was served as globally as the market of these devices is just absurd.

    Those jurors could be truly great and wise people, in a case like this it's still a Kangaroo court from the outside.

    Our global social codes simply do not allow the overreach the Internet and global information technology enable.

    And that does not mean that whoever gets there first should overrule local social codes. Technology will have to adapt long before societies do.

    Everything else is agression, I have to agree with the Chinese (and variuos others) there. Especially because I don't like their oligarchy (or any other) replacing democracy.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    abufrejoval said:
    Those jurors could be truly great and wise people, in a case like this it's still a Kangaroo court from the outside.
    I can't speak about how the world sees the US justice system, but I know the UK's courts are held in high regard. It's one of the leading venues for arbitration of commercial cases:
    https://www.judiciary.uk/courts-and-tribunals/business-and-property-courts/commercial-court/the-work-of-the-commercial-court/the-commercial-court-and-arbitration/
    So, I think there are better and worse judicial systems. It's not just all noise, in the end.

    Another complicating factor is how the laws vary, from one country to the next. Though, I know there are some international treaties governing certain aspects of IP law. However, any court is going to try to reach a decision on the basis of the applicable laws. So, that's an additional degree of freedom.
    Reply