A unanimous jury found that Arm breached one license provision and intentionally and negligently interfered with Qualcomm Technologies’ relationship with Meta. Judge Maryellen Noreika’s October 13 judgment entered $1 for the breach and $1 for interference, with closing arguments in a separate bench trial set for October 20.
On October 13, 2026, in Delaware, Judge Maryellen Noreika entered judgment that Arm breached a Qualcomm license, and the jury priced it at $1. The Judgment Following Jury Verdict records the unanimous jury’s answers on separate contract and interference claims. In that judgment, the court wrote that the Arm defendants “did breach Section 5 of the Architecture License Agreement” and entered $1 in damages for it. A second $1 award covers interference with Qualcomm Technologies’ relationship with Meta, which the judgment says was both intentional and negligent. Qualcomm won on breach and interference and left with $2, with closing arguments in a separate bench trial set for October 20, 2026.
The jury had a form to fill out. After asking whether Qualcomm proved a breach of section 5 of its Architecture License Agreement, the redacted verdict form gave jurors a separate question: what amount of damages had Qualcomm proved for that breach? The entered judgment supplies the answer, $1. The form asked separately about intentional and negligent interference with Qualcomm Technologies’ relationship with Meta, then asked for one damages amount. The judgment supplies that answer too, $1.
The 3 sources behind this story: 3 court records, each linked with what it shows. Free with the weekly Litigation Sentinel brief.
The distinction was visible in open court. According to the District of Delaware docket, the verdict was reached and read there on the sixth day of the jury trial. Judge Noreika entered judgment the same day. The result was neither a complete defense verdict nor a substantial damages award for Qualcomm. The judgment records a contract breach and intentional and negligent interference; the court entered $2 in damages.
The contract finding was specific. Judge Noreika’s judgment says the Arm defendants breached section 5 of the Architecture License Agreement by withholding ACKs and OOBs both before and after January 8, 2023. Neither the judgment nor the verdict form defines those items, states how much Qualcomm asked the jury to award, or explains why the finding drew $1.
Qualcomm did not win the other contract claims the jury decided. The judgment entered in Arm’s favor on three cited provisions of the Technology License Agreement concerning the Hunter, Hayes, and Yamin Cores. It also entered judgment for Arm on Qualcomm’s claim that a failure to provide a reasonable offer for GIC-700, MMU-700, or ELA-600 breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Free weekly intelligence for executives responsible for litigation exposure: the named decision-makers, dollar exposure, operating consequence, and next development.
That split narrows what the verdict says. The jury’s finding about section 5 of the Architecture License Agreement does not establish a breach of the separate Technology License Agreement. Nor did Qualcomm prevail on the reasonable-offer claim. The judgment records wins on the Architecture License Agreement claim and the Meta interference claim, losses on the other listed claims, and $2 across the two damages awards.
The Meta finding has its own precision. The judgment says the Arm defendants intentionally and negligently interfered with Qualcomm Technologies’ economic relationship with Meta. It enters one $1 award for tortious interference with that relationship. The two interference findings did not become two separate dollar awards.
**Analysis:** For anyone tracking the case as trial exposure, the entered number is $2, even though the judgment records a contract breach and both intentional and negligent interference. The verdict form shows jurors were asked to decide damages separately. The judgment shows what they awarded.
The jury trial did not occupy the docket alone. The court’s entries record a bench trial, a proceeding decided by the judge, beginning October 5, 2026, and list another bench trial entry on October 13. The docket entries do not describe the issue Judge Noreika must decide there, but they set closing arguments for October 20, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4A, with 90 minutes divided equally between the parties.
Other names appeared on the trial docket as nonparties sought to protect confidential material. Samsung Electronics filed an emergency motion to intervene for that limited purpose. Texas Instruments also moved to intervene over confidential information, and MediaTek moved to seal the courtroom during limited portions of trial. A jury-trial minute entry says the court granted or otherwise addressed the third-party confidentiality motions and letters during trial. Those entries show the fight over what could be heard or disclosed; they do not explain the jury’s $1 answers.
Arm also filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law during trial. The October 13 judgment says it denies as moot all other motions the parties made under Rule 50(a). The judgment does not say whether that language reaches Arm’s motion, and the docket entry for Arm’s supporting brief lists a response date of October 23, 2026. Neither changes the recorded jury findings or the two damages amounts.
The jury’s work has a signed judgment. Its scoreboard is a contract breach finding, intentional and negligent interference findings, two $1 awards, and defense wins on the other contract claims listed in the judgment. On October 20, 2026, the parties are scheduled to return to Judge Noreika for the bench trial’s closings. That is the next open thread on the Delaware docket.
The Executive Briefing has five questions about your reported litigation practices. Use the summary to choose an operating question to explore.
Take the Executive Briefing →Free weekly intelligence for executives responsible for litigation exposure: the named decision-makers, dollar exposure, operating consequence, and next development.