Vinayak Agrawal’s Post

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

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

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

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

Fascinating IP story. Curious to see Arm's licenses. Here is the crux of the matter: "SoftBank-backed Arm alleged that Qualcomm failed to secure the required consent to transfer Nuvia’s license after the acquisition, and is now using Arm’s intellectual property without its permission. Qualcomm has countered that its existing licence with Arm is sufficient. Arm sued Qualcomm, in what it has described as a last-resort move to protect its intellectual property. It marks the first time in Arm’s 34-year history that it has taken such a drastic step, bringing its confidential licensing arrangements into full view in a public courtroom." #intellectualproperty #tech #bigtech #licensing #AI #qualcomm #ARM #nuvia

Arm and Qualcomm are going to court over chip design licensing disputes, and the trial is expected to last a week

Intel Corporation Wins UK Leg of Global Patent Dispute with R2 Semiconductor, Inc. over Chip Technology Intel Corporation emerged victorious in the London segment of a global patent battle with R2 Semiconductor, Inc., as the UK High Court ruled in its favor. The dispute began in 2022 when R2 sued Intel, alleging patent infringement related to chips and processors containing fully integrated voltage regulators. Intel counterclaimed, seeking to invalidate R2's patent on the grounds that it lacked an inventive step based on previous inventions. Judge Richard Hacon concurred, declaring R2's patent invalid. However, he noted that Intel would have infringed the patent had it been valid. This UK ruling contrasts with a February decision by a German court that favored R2, a decision currently under appeal. The companies are also embroiled in similar disputes in France and Italy. The potential injunction sought by R2 could have halted the sale of Intel products, including its "Ice Lake" server chips. Both companies have yet to comment on the ruling. Adv. Jaspreet Singh Piyush Yadav Advocate Apoorva Sharma Urvashi Sharma RITIKA TAPARIA Sk Badsha SK SOHEL Aditya Singh Aditi Sharma Kartik Mogha Praveen Yadav Priyanjal Jain Shreya Sanghavi #Intel #R2Semiconductor #PatentDispute #UKHighCourt #ChipTechnology #VoltageRegulators #Microprocessors #PatentInfringement #TechLitigation #GlobalPatentBattle #TechIndustry #IntellectualProperty #Innovation #InventiveStep #LegalRulings #ChipManufacturing #TechNews #LondonLitigation #GermanyCourt #FranceLitigation #ItalyLitigation #IceLakeServerChips #OnChipPowerSupplies #PatentInvalidation #TechLawsuits #SemiconductorIndustry #Microelectronics #GlobalTechDispute #IntegratedCircuits #TechLegalNews #HighCourtRuling https://lnkd.in/eCZu637x

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!

How do you prove a negative? Apparently not by using the tactics Apple uses in its motions to transfer venue to Northern District of California in cases before Judge Albright in the Western District of Texas. The combatants (Albright v. Apple Attorneys) have been here many times before. The objective for Apple is to get any patent litigation case transferred to ND Cal, where Apple would be before home district judges who have no problem with a war of attrition defense. One problem for Apple is it has about 10,000 employees in Austin, which is within WD Texas. Apple's arguments for venue transfer typically proport the relevant witnesses are in ND Cal and not WD Texas. This case involves the assertion of US Patents 8,093,767, 8,860,337, 9,941,830, and 11,152,882, which relate to Linear vibration modules and linear-resonant vibration modules. The complaint included quality claim charts that are mapped to Apple's "Taptic Engine" technology. The accused Apple Products include modules that are literally labeled "TAPTIC ENGINE." The order includes, Second, and perhaps more irksome, Apple chose declarants who lack personal knowledge (1) as to employees located at Apple’s Austin campus and (2) any access to relevant evidence those employees may possess. The Court therefore cannot meaningfully determine whether Apple’s sources of proof are “relatively easier to access” in NDCA than WDTX. ... Worst of all, the Rollins Declaration uses language that carefully limits the scope of declared facts to his personal, selectively fed knowledge. For example, the Mr. Rollins’s supplemental declaration states, ‘I am not aware of any Apple employees located in WDTX who worked on the research, design, or development of the Accused Features.’ Then, his qualified statements are cited by Apple’s attorneys in transfer motions as though they are authoritative truths. For example, ‘Apple’s sources of proof are located in or around NDCA. There are no sources of proof located in WDTX.’ The Taptic Engine is a separate component with associated software (corehaptics). Apple should have information, from engineering management of where the group/team that developed the Taptic Engine(s) is/are located, and whom the important engineers/employees are and where they work. In response to interrogatories seeking such information, Apple asserted, "Apple does not maintain a company-wide list of all the products each employee works on." One of Apple's declarants (Chang Zhang), who manages an engineering team that implements Taptic Engines in MacBook products appears to have direct knowledge as applied to those products (observing the primary target is iPhones). The tenor of the order is Albright is tired of Apple's tactics, including repeated stonewalling on discovery requests. Apple may/will file a writ of Mandamus to the Federal Circuit, but I doubt the Federal Circuit will order transfer of venue.

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