The legal standoff between Qualcomm and Arm reached an interim resolution last week when a US District Court for the District of Delaware jury ruled that Qualcomm's acquisition of Nuvia and the subsequent development of the Oryon processor did not breach the company's existing chip design licensing agreement with Arm, eliminating the need for additional licensing fees.
Initial victory leaves key questions unresolved
While Qualcomm's initial legal victory allowed product development to continue, the jury was unable to reach a consensus on whether Nuvia violated its licensing agreement with Arm during the development process. This partial decision ensures Qualcomm can continue shipping its existing product lines, though the possibility of extended legal skirmishes remains.
Court documents confirmed that Qualcomm's actions complied with its existing agreement with Arm. Specifically, the licensing terms did not mandate renegotiation following Qualcomm's acquisition of Nuvia, despite the company's use of Arm technology in its product development.
Analysts believe the ruling poses significant challenges for Arm in pursuing further legal action against Qualcomm. However, while Arm has indicated plans to seek additional arbitration, the decision effectively limits its ability to block the launch of Qualcomm products.
Supply chain concerns ease after ruling
The ruling brought relief to the PC supply chain, where brands have heavily invested in Qualcomm-based Copilot+ PCs with robust backing from Microsoft.
Industry stakeholders had expressed concerns about the implications of a potential Qualcomm loss, which could have halted shipments of products powered by Nuvia technology, including the Oryon CPU. Such a scenario would have disrupted PC platforms, affecting brands and peripheral IC suppliers. The stakes were particularly high given Qualcomm's plans to expand Oryon CPU integration into flagship mobile and automotive SoCs in 2024.
Instruction set dispute highlights industry complexities
The jury could not reach a unanimous decision on whether Nuvia's use of Arm's instruction set constitutes proprietary Arm technology. This core issue centers on how the instruction set allows circuits to operate within the Arm architecture, creating legal ambiguity surrounding intellectual property rights.
Arm argued that its agreements with Nuvia prohibited the transfer of technology and architecture licenses. In response, Nuvia maintained that it only used the instruction set, avoiding direct use of Arm's licensed technologies. Given the complexities of the technology and business model, the jury struggled to deliver a definitive ruling.
Industry experts suggest that even if Arm pursues further legal action against Nuvia, either through a retrial or different legal venues, the outcomes are unlikely to differ.
The debate over whether the use of an instruction set equates to utilizing Arm's intellectual property highlights the need for clearer definitions within the tech industry. This lack of clarity may continue to challenge future juries in making conclusive rulings. Furthermore, as long as Nuvia asserts that its products developed with Arm's instruction set are proprietary, the deadlock between the two companies is expected to continue.
