Alan Burnett’s Post

The final outcome might be that Qualcomm is allowed to continue using Arm's technology but will need to pay licensing fees. However, these fees should be benchmarked against what other companies are paying. It’s intriguing to observe Qualcomm’s arguments in the ongoing dispute: 1. Independent Development:     Qualcomm asserts that the Nuvia chip designs in question, such as the Oryon cores, were developed independently from Arm. This claim emphasizes that the architectural innovations behind these designs were not directly reliant on Arm’s proprietary technology. 2. Alleged Misconduct by Arm:     Qualcomm also accuses Arm of misleading the company into disbanding its internal design team, thereby increasing Qualcomm’s reliance on Arm’s technology. Qualcomm further claims that Arm exploited this dependence by attempting to raise royalty rates by as much as 400%. The distinction between independent development of the Oryon core designs and the licensing of Arm’s instruction sets is critical. While Qualcomm may have independently developed the core designs, the use of Arm’s instruction set architecture (ISA) still requires proper licensing. Qualcomm has maintained a core architecture licensing team for years, and this expertise is central to its operations. Additionally, Qualcomm has highlighted Arm’s intention to manufacture its own chips, potentially giving Arm an unfair advantage in the smartphone market. This concern aligns with how other companies, like Apple, also pay licensing fees to Arm for using its instruction sets in custom chip designs. Ultimately, the resolution of the case will depend on the jury’s interpretation of the licensing agreements and the extent to which Arm’s ISA was utilized in Nuvia’s designs. https://lnkd.in/gX5dV5nt

From Partnership to Courtroom: Arm Cancels Qualcomm License, Industry Braces for Fallout Arm Holdings Plc has announced it will terminate Qualcomm Inc.’s chip design license. The move marks a major shift in the relationship between the two semiconductor giants, potentially disrupting the smartphone and personal computer industries. The Cancellation of a...

In a significant legal development, Qualcomm has secured a favorable verdict in its dispute with Arm over chip design licenses. A U.S. jury ruled in Qualcomm’s favor on two key issues, though it remained deadlocked on whether Nuvia, acquired by Qualcomm in 2021, breached its license with Arm. Arm plans to seek a retrial due to this deadlock. The Delaware judge has recommended mediation between the parties. This outcome could have far-reaching implications for the semiconductor industry, particularly concerning intellectual property rights and licensing agreements. For a comprehensive analysis, read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/gCGg2Xin

Lenovo’s major UK win over InterDigital, Inc.: chart and further analysis By way of contrast, after two rounds of U.S. litigation, Ericsson had a court ruling against HTC that it could ask for either $2.50 per unit (more than 11 times what InterDigital got after two rounds of litigation in the UK) or $1-4 unit depending on the device price. Both parties' lawyers did great work: Gowling WLG for InterDigital, Kirkland & Ellis for Lenovo. But like Mr Justice Mellor wrote last year, it's still true that Lenovo is the commercial winner. (And another "winner" may be the Unified Patent Court, depending on how its own SEP case law evolves.) #FRAND #standards #patents https://lnkd.in/dprnn8F4

The legal battle between Arm and Qualcomm kicked off this week, with both sides presenting their arguments. Arm alleges Qualcomm breached its licensing agreement by using Nuvia's chip designs without paying higher royalties, while Qualcomm counters that Arm is overreaching and seeking to stifle competition. Arm maintains that its actions are necessary to protect its business model and ensure fair licensing practices. The outcome of this case will have significant implications for the future of the semiconductor industry and the relationship between chip designers and technology licensors. The Arm-Qualcomm legal battle kicked off this week with both sides presenting their arguments. Arm accuses Qualcomm of breaching its licensing agreement by using Nuvia's designs without paying higher royalties. Qualcomm counters that its existing license covers Nuvia's technology and alleges Arm is seeking to disrupt Qualcomm's business by entering the chip market itself. Arm contends that Qualcomm's actions could severely impact its revenue, while Qualcomm argues that Arm's actions are misleading and intended to stifle competition. The outcome of this case will have significant implications for the semiconductor industry, particularly regarding intellectual property rights and the relationship between technology licensors and their customers. #Arm #Qualcomm #TechGiants #lawsuit #licensing #chips #semiconductor #semiconductors #semiconductorindustry #semiconductormanufacturing #IP #innovation #technology #technologynews

Chip groups Arm and Qualcomm square off in high-stakes US trial https://lnkd.in/gByXgPD7 Arm and Qualcomm end up in court over the architecture license Arm granted to NUVIA Inc which was acquired by #qualcomm in 2021 while Qualcomm also has architecture license from ARM, and is claiming that given that it also has an architecture license, it didn't need ARM's explicit permission to acquire Nuvia's work, the devil is very likely in the details. It is almost certain that the type of "architecture license" #ARM gBe Nuvia isn't the same as the one given to Qualcomm. ARM would have retained certain IP rights to any changes made by Nuvia to the architecture/design, in Nuvia's license. Qualcomm etc. get a license where they keep what they do. the relief ARM is seeking - destruction of all that has been created is probably an unreasonable relief under a civil lawsuit, in civil suits court usually try to make reasonable amends for the aggrieved party with minimizing the disruptions to the other party and the society in general. As a result usually the standard enforcement is penal damages. Injunctions are called for in rare cases, for example if party A and party B are both selling some products that compete with each other, what B has no right to sell it without A's permission, and if B stops selling it, nobody in the world would be bothered too much. Even in such cases courts will encourage licensing settlements first. that's the nature of civil suits. But let's see how this case progresses. Trial is next week.

In a high-stakes legal battle between two chip industry titans, a U.S. federal jury found that Qualcomm’s central processors are properly licensed under an agreement with ARM Holdings, LP... #antitrust #intellectualproperty #processors #license #agreement #microchips #technology #competitionlaw

In a major victory for Qualcomm, a Delaware jury has ruled in its favor in the licensing dispute with Arm Holdings. This outcome allows Qualcomm to leverage Nuvia's cutting-edge CPU technology without the looming threat of legal challenges. The case underscores the significance of intellectual property rights in the semiconductor industry, as Qualcomm aims to solidify its position and drive innovation. While Qualcomm can now innovate freely, the deadlock on whether Nuvia breached its license with Arm suggests that legal uncertainties could persist, possibly impacting future collaborations. As Arm signals intentions for a retrial, the stakes are high for the industry. This verdict not only empowers Qualcomm but also raises questions about Arm's future licensing strategies. The ripple effects may reshape the competitive landscape, emphasizing the need for conscientious licensing practices. As we watch this unfold, one thing is clear: the semiconductor space is more dynamic than ever!

Arm Cancels Qualcomm’s Chip Design Licence Amid Legal Battle 🔨 SoftBank-backed Arm has cancelled Qualcomm’s chip design licence, escalating an ongoing legal dispute over royalty payments. Qualcomm, a major Arm customer, accused Arm of using “strong-arm” tactics to raise royalty rates, which could disrupt the trial scheduled for December. The Fallout from Qualcomm’s Nuvia Acquisition 💼 The dispute began in 2022 after Qualcomm’s $1.4bn acquisition of Nuvia. Arm claims Qualcomm used its intellectual property without permission, while Qualcomm denies the allegations, calling Arm’s contract termination “baseless.” This legal battle affects Qualcomm’s core chip business, which depends heavily on Arm's architecture. AI Optimism Amid Legal Turmoil 📈 Despite the tension, both companies have benefited from the AI boom, with rising share prices driven by demand for AI-enabled hardware. The patent dispute, set for trial in December, could significantly impact Qualcomm’s future if its licence is revoked. https://lnkd.in/drW7Tmuy #Arm #Qualcomm #ChipDesign #SoftBank #Nuvia #AI #IntellectualProperty #CPUs #TechLegal

Xiaomi Technology defeats Panasonic in UK, wins interim-license declaration that renders Unified Patent Court, German proceedings waste of time and money A landmark #FRAND ruling that effectively disposes of multiple UPC and German infringement actions though the decision, diplomatically, leaves it to those courts to decide. Panasonic v. Xiaomi SEP trials were scheduled to be held in the UPC's Mannheim LD (technical merits on Monday, FRAND on Wednesday, hypothetical continuation on Thursday), the Munich I Regional Court (Friday, October 11) and the Mannheim Regional Court (Friday, October 18). They can be called off. Panasonic will only make matters worse by insisting on those trials taking place, as they'll have to reimburse Xiaomi for the costs of vexatious and oppressive litigation the way Motorola Mobility was ordered to reimburse Microsoft in a U.S. case. This decision shows that the UK judiciary is fairly balanced with respect to SEPs. Two days ago, Ericsson defeated Lenovo. The fact pattern here is special because both Panasonic and Xiaomi made a commitment, at a November 2023 hearing in the UK, to resolve the dispute through a license agreement on UK-determined terms. Panel: LJ Arnold wrote the per curiam, supported by LJ Moyhan. LJ Phillips also condemned Panasonic's conduct, but would have preferred an #antisuit injunction. It's a huge success for Kirkland & Ellis's Nicola Dagg, Steven Baldwin, Jin Ooi and Andrew Marks. Daniel Alexander KC was the barrister retained by Kirkland who deliver oral argument for Xiaomi. https://lnkd.in/gtGwucwx