Arm vs. Qualcomm trial begins — Arm demands that the patent-infringing Nuvia designs be destroyed

Arm vs. Qualcomm legal battle begins
(Image credit: Shutterstock)

The litigation between Arm and Qualcomm began this week and the companies exchanged the first salvo of shots in the courtroom. As expected, Arm accused Qualcomm of breaching the contract by releasing its Snapdragon X processors for PCs with general-purpose cores designed by Nuvia, while Qualcomm accused Arm of competing with its own customers by offering complete chip blueprints for client and datacenter processors, reports Reuters.

The dispute began after Qualcomm acquired Nuvia for $1.4 billion in 2021 and proceeded with the development of its custom Armv8.2-based cores that are now used inside the Snapdragon X processors. Arm contends that Qualcomm breached its agreement by failing to renegotiate terms following its acquisition of Nuvia, as these designs require adherence to Nuvia's higher royalty rates.

As a remedy, Arm is demanding the destruction of all Nuvia designs developed prior to the merger. Qualcomm, however, argues that its architecture license agreement (ALA) fully covers Nuvia's designs. This difference in royalties has reportedly cost Arm an estimated $50 million in annual revenue, which is a lot of money for the company.

Qualcomm argues that Arm's actions are motivated by plans to compete with its customers, now that it offers CPU compute subsystems for client and datacenter processors and other use cases. In court, Qualcomm presented internal Arm documents suggesting the company considered designing its own chips, which would make it a major competitor for its own clients, including Qualcomm. René Haas, chief executive of Arm, dismissed these claims, stating that while Arm explores various business opportunities, for now it has no intentions of selling actual hardware, such as processors.

Haas also defended letters Arm sent to dozens of Qualcomm's clients, including Samsung (which uses Qualcomm-designed processors inside its smartphones and PCs), warning them about the potential fallout from the dispute. Qualcomm's attorneys described these letters as misleading, asserting they were designed to disrupt Qualcomm's relationships with its customers. Haas maintained that the letters were necessary to address questions from industry partners concerned with the litigation's implications.

Arm licenses its CPU and GPU cores as well as instruction set architecture to hundreds of clients worldwide. Allowing Qualcomm to sidestep higher royalty rates could undermine its business model, which is why it had to act aggressively. Haas described the situation as unprecedented, emphasizing that the company is focused on protecting its long-term business interests.

Qualcomm currently pays Arm approximately $300 million annually in fees, according to Bernstein analyst Stacy Rasgon. Therefore, it's crucial for Arm to ensure that Qualcomm adheres to its licensing policies. If other CPU designers follow Qualcomm, Arm's business could be hurt badly.

TOPICS
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.

  • hotaru251
    Qualcomm, however, argues that its architecture license agreement (ALA) fully covers Nuvia's designs.

    this likely be the deciding factor if a judge rules it true or not.
    Reply
  • ezst036
    I'm looking forward to the day when Qualcomm throws its considerable weight behind RISC-V.
    Reply
  • SunMaster
    I wonder if this might forever alter the relation between Qualcomm and Arm to the extent that Qualcomm would have problems creating leading edge Arm based SoCs.
    Reply
  • Notton
    I'm looking at Qualcomm yearly profits, and they don't seem to be in such financial troubles that an additional $50 million per year in costs would have hurt them at all.

    Qualcomm had an average $40 Billion net profit per year for 20-24
    (50000000 / 40000000000 = 0.00125%)

    But I guess it's cheaper to fight it out in court?
    Reply
  • thestryker
    So about that $50 million let's be accurate here:
    At the trial in U.S. federal court in Delaware on Monday, jurors were shown documents that indicated Nuvia's royalty rates were "many multiples" more than Qualcomm's, and allowing Qualcomm to pay the lower rates would have damaged Arm's business model.

    Qualcomm's acquisition of Nuvia potentially trimmed $50 million from Arm revenue, according to estimates in internal documents that were shown to the jury.
    So this sounds more like $50 million based on the low volume high cost enterprise parts Nuvia was making. The cost to Qualcomm would have been significant and if the $300 million figure is accurate that would put it in the billions. Of course Qualcomm has also been using Arm designs lately which also carry higher cost to them. If $50 million really is the "many multiples" value then Qualcomm has some sort of super sweetheart architecture license deal.

    As much as I'm not a fan of Qualcomm's business practices as they've dominated the mobile market Arm has certainly come across as the bully here. Arm canceling Qualcomm's license when they did is tantamount to blackmail so I can't imagine that will go over well in court either.
    Reply
  • Pierce2623
    hotaru251 said:
    this likely be the deciding factor if a judge rules it true or not.
    Well yeah. Thing is Nuvia’s license was a special license only available to startups and applicable to server chips rather than client systems.
    Reply
  • JamesJones44
    Notton said:
    Qualcomm had an average $40 Billion net profit per year for 20-24
    Their 2024 EPS was $8.97 a share. Qualcomm has 1.1 billion shares. Their profit can't be 40 billion. Simple calculation is 8.95 x 1.1 billion which is 10 billion rounded up (9.867 billion). Their revenue was 42.4 billion however.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    Pierce2623 said:
    Well yeah. Thing is Nuvia’s license was a special license only available to startups and applicable to server chips rather than client systems.
    Qualcomm doesn't dispute that Nuvia's license was voided by the acquisition, as the license clearly stated as much. Qualcomm's argument is that they should be able to use their existing architecture license (back from when Qualcomm used to design their own client & server CPU cores) to sell chips containing Nuvia's designs.
    Reply
  • toyotabedzrock
    I don't see how ARM has a case unless their Nuvia license says any developed IP has to be licensed separately for eternity and even then they would have needed to have themselves listed on the patents.

    Nuvia didn't make any profit yet so they basically drained them until it had to be sold.

    They should get more royalties from Qualcomm if the core is successful in laptops and servers. But they seem determined to self sabotage.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    toyotabedzrock said:
    I don't see how ARM has a case ...
    ARM filed this well before their re-IPO. One possibility is that they wanted to dangle the prospect of greater revenues in front of investors, who might've indexed the value of the case according to the probability of a favorable outcome (for ARM). This is just pure speculation, on my part.

    Another thought I had is that ARM is genuinely worried about the rise of RISC-V and sees a shrinking window of opportunity in which to maximize their AArch64 revenue. So, even though this could hasten the transition away from ARM, they might've judged a successful outcome as worth the risk.
    Reply