A five-day jury trial between Qualcomm and Arm opened in Delaware this week, with Qualcomm asking the court to relieve it from paying roughly $300 million in annual royalties for five years under architecture licenses that run through 2033. The second courtroom showdown between the two IP heavyweights targets the same licensing architecture that underpins billions of smartphone and server chips.

What is Qualcomm's complaint this time?

Qualcomm alleges Arm breached contract by withholding chip-testing tools the license terms obliged Arm to provide. The complaint then widens into a 2024 episode in which, according to Qualcomm, Arm leaked a draft license-termination notice to derail a chip supply deal Qualcomm was negotiating with Meta. Arm's counsel described the alleged Meta engagement as "speculative." Arm has also pushed back by arguing that Qualcomm cannot recover damages over the leak, pointing to Qualcomm's own disclosure of non-public details from antitrust investigations into Arm.

How much is at stake?

The royalty stream anchors the case. Qualcomm's filings indicate it pays Arm about $300 million a year under licenses that do not expire until 2033, a figure that quantifies the contract exposure Arm manages and the runway Qualcomm wants protected. Qualcomm's request for a five-year royalty holiday, if granted in full, would represent roughly $1.5 billion in foregone payments to Arm; the judge retains discretion to cap any damages Qualcomm can recover at a smaller sum.

How did the companies get here?

The original lawsuit followed Arm's objection to Qualcomm's acquisition of Nuvia, a chip-design startup that held Arm licenses tailored to its server-class CPU work. Arm argued Qualcomm had to renegotiate the Nuvia agreements; Qualcomm refused and won the underlying breach-of-contract case, which now sits pending appeal. The new trial pulls back from that existential question and focuses instead on post-judgment conduct between Arm and its largest mobile customer.

What are the lawyers telling the jury?

Qualcomm's lead counsel, Karen Dunn, framed the case in stark commercial terms during opening statements. "At the end of the case we'll ask you to ask yourselves what would you do if your entire business depended on someone living up to their promises and contracts," Dunn told the Delaware jury.

Arm's lawyer, Gregg LoCascio, countered that Qualcomm is using litigation as a lever in a price-and-terms dispute rather than proving concrete injury. "They were not harmed in the least," LoCascio said, reminding jurors that Qualcomm bears the burden of demonstrating damages.

What else will the jury decide?

Beyond the contract and damages questions, the panel will weigh whether Arm has negotiated in good faith with Qualcomm over the next generation of Arm's CPU architecture, a strand of the dispute that could shape licensing terms attached to forthcoming cores. The good-faith finding is procedural but consequential: it can feed into the damages phase and into the licensing posture each side carries into the appeal of the original Nuvia ruling.

What does the outcome change?

A Qualcomm win on the testing-tools claim or on damages would tighten the contractual leash on Arm's IP-licensing practices and give Qualcomm negotiating leverage as the 2033 renewal window approaches. A defense verdict would leave the royalty stream intact and reinforce Arm's position that its termination-letter mechanics fall within negotiated rights. Either ruling feeds back into the pending appeal of the original Nuvia decision, a verdict that will set the tone for licensing negotiations through the rest of the decade.