Qualcomm and Arm Return to Court Over Royalties and a Deal with Meta

The latest legal dispute between Qualcomm and Arm puts both compliance with their licensing agreements and the commercial impact of a supplier-customer dispute under scrutiny. The trial, which began on October 5, 2026, in a federal court in Delaware, is scheduled to last five days. Qualcomm is seeking permission to suspend royalty payments to Arm for up to five years—a measure that, according to news coverage, could represent billions of dollars. No final ruling has been reported.

Qualcomm’s allegations: tools and a leaked letter

Qualcomm maintains that Arm withheld tools needed to test its processors, despite contractual obligations that Arm was required to meet, according to the company. It also accuses Arm of leaking to the press a 2024 letter threatening to cancel an important license for Qualcomm.

The company says the communication and its dissemination affected negotiations to supply chips to Meta. According to Qualcomm’s lawyer, Karen Dunn, the company was close to finalizing a deal when the license threat emerged, creating uncertainty for the prospective customer. ZonaMovilidad reported that Qualcomm attributes a $170 million reduction in the deal’s value to the renegotiation. That figure is the company’s claim; it is not damages established by the court.

Arm denies responsibility for the outcome of the negotiations

Arm denies breaching the contract or harming Qualcomm. Its defense argues that changes to the agreement with Meta resulted from Meta’s business decisions. Gregg LoCascio, Arm’s lawyer, said Meta had shifted its priorities from virtual reality devices to AI glasses, and that this change in direction would explain the renegotiation of the terms.

Arm also disputes that Qualcomm can claim damages over the letter’s leak and argues that Qualcomm disclosed confidential information about antitrust investigations related to Arm. These are arguments made by the defense, not judicial findings.

The royalty clause could determine the financial scope

Judge Maryellen Noreika must decide whether the contract will retain the provision that would allow Qualcomm to suspend royalty payments for five years. According to Investing.com’s coverage, if the clause is removed, Qualcomm could be limited to claiming a smaller amount in damages. The scope of the financial claim therefore depends on how that contractual issue is decided, as well as on the assessment of the allegations and evidence at trial.

For companies that depend on technology licenses, the case illustrates how a dispute over supply or licensing obligations can intersect with commercial negotiations involving third parties. But the specific consequences for Qualcomm, Arm, or Meta remain undetermined: the parties’ allegations and claimed figures must be distinguished from any facts established by a judicial ruling.