Qualcomm Wins Landmark Legal Battle Against Arm, Securing Rights to Custom CPU Designs Under Existing License

Qualcomm has secured a decisive legal victory over Arm in a high-stakes licensing dispute, marking a turning point in the semiconductor industry. The U.S. District Court in Delaware has dismissed all remaining claims by Arm, affirming Qualcomm’s right to use CPU designs developed by Nuvia—acquired by Qualcomm in 2021—under its existing Architecture License Agreement (ALA). This final judgment closes a prolonged legal battle and sets a significant precedent for how architecture licenses can be interpreted and applied. The dispute stemmed from Arm’s claim that Qualcomm needed to renegotiate its license after acquiring Nuvia, arguing that the original ALA was intended for data center use only, while Qualcomm planned to deploy Nuvia’s custom Arm v8 cores across a much broader range of markets—from smartphones and PCs to automotive and AI servers. Arm also contended that Qualcomm’s use of the cores under an ALA, rather than a more expensive Technology License Agreement (TLA), undermined its licensing revenue model, as TLA fees are higher and tied to per-core royalties. Qualcomm maintained that its ALA granted it full rights to develop, modify, and deploy custom cores based on the Arm instruction set architecture, regardless of the original scope of the Nuvia agreement. The company further argued that the integration of Nuvia’s technology into its own product lines was consistent with the spirit and terms of the ALA. A jury in December 2024 unanimously sided with Qualcomm, and the court’s September 30, 2025, decision confirmed the verdict, rejecting Arm’s request for a retrial. This win is not just a victory for Qualcomm—it could reshape the broader semiconductor landscape. The ruling establishes that architecture licensees can legally integrate acquired CPU startups and their custom designs into their own ALA frameworks without needing to renegotiate terms or pay additional fees. This legal clarity empowers other major Arm licensees like Amazon, Broadcom, Google, MediaTek, and Nvidia to pursue similar strategies, acquiring specialized silicon firms and scaling custom designs without fear of retroactive licensing demands. For Qualcomm, the win removes a major legal hurdle in its efforts to expand the use of Nuvia’s Oryon/Phoenix CPU cores. The Snapdragon X2 Elite processors, built on this architecture, are already showing strong performance and efficiency, particularly in AI and high-performance computing. With legal certainty, Qualcomm can now accelerate deployment across smartphones, PCs, automotive systems, and even data centers and robotics—areas where custom silicon is increasingly critical. The ruling also underscores the value of Arm’s architecture as a foundation for innovation. While companies like Apple have moved toward proprietary extensions (such as AMX), they still rely on Arm’s ISA for compatibility. The decision reinforces that Arm’s role as the keeper of the ISA remains central, even as companies build highly customized implementations. However, the fallout for Arm is significant. The legal battle has strained its relationship with one of its most important partners. Qualcomm’s pending countersuit, accusing Arm of contract breaches and interference with customer relationships, could further damage ties. Arm’s own shift toward designing its own CPUs—such as its Neoverse CSS line—adds complexity, as it now competes directly with its licensees. Moving forward, Arm must focus on rebuilding trust and redefining its relationship with key partners. The ruling does not diminish Arm’s dominance in low-power computing or its vast software and tools ecosystem. But it does signal that licensees now have greater legal confidence to innovate within the Arm ecosystem—without being held back by ambiguous licensing terms. In the long term, this case may influence how companies approach silicon strategy. With stronger legal protection for custom design integration, more firms may opt to build differentiated products using Arm’s architecture rather than switching to alternatives like RISC-V. At the same time, it highlights the growing tension between IP licensing models and the need for innovation freedom in a competitive AI-driven market.