20
Dec

Qualcomm vs. Arm trial, Day 4 – Both parties rest their case, and jury deliberations begin.

Summary of Day 4
Check out the summaries of previous days:  Day 1, Day 2, and Day 3.
Today was the last day of the hearing. Both parties gave their closing statements, which were primarily rehashes of their arguments so far. The presiding judge gave final jury instructions, and the jury started deliberations around noon. They will have to decide on three questions, and their verdict on each of the questions will have to be unanimous. They deliberated until the end of the day (4:30 p.m.) but didn’t converge. They will return tomorrow at 9 am. The judge might also discuss remedies tomorrow.
I am hopeful that the Jury will come up with a verdict tomorrow, or else they will have to come back on Jan 3rd next year because of the Christmas holidays. That will be a nightmare scenario as they might have forgotten all the testimonies and other details.
Come back here tomorrow for the fifth and possibly the final day’s update.
Highlights of Day 4:
  • There are three questions (really two, as 1 & 2 are similar) the jury has to answer, as I had discussed in the Day 2 blog:
    1. Whether Nuvia has breached section 15.1(a) of Nuvia ALA?
    2. Whether Qualcomm has breached section 15.1(a) of Nuvia ALA?
    3. Are Qualcomm products using Nuvia technology covered under Qualcomm ALA?
Section 15.1(a) refers to destroying Arm’s confidential information after ALA cancellation. The second question is interesting, as Qualcomm was never a party to the Nuvia ALA. However, Arm claims that since Qualcomm enjoyed the benefits of the technology developed under the Nuvia ALA, it has to be associated with that contract. The third question is Qualcomm’s counterclaim, which is to protect it from any future litigation related to Nuvia technology.
  • Arm, in its closing statement, reiterated the same arguments from the last three days and tried to address some of the issues raised by Qualcomm
    • Nuvia/Qualcomm needed Arm consent for acquisition
    • Nuvia breached the confidentiality requirements of ALA by sharing it with Qualcomm
    • Qualcomm bought Nuvia because of cost savings, not performance issues
    • Arm Technology includes Architecture Compliant Core (check out Day 2 blog for details)
    • Many things Qualcomm raised are irrelevant (e.g., SoftBank/ Masayoshi Son’s influence, letters to Qualcomm customers, CEO compensation, etc.)
Arm’s presentation was more direct – this is a contract case, and here are our arguments on why we are right.
  • Qualcomm’s closing statement also included a rehash of arguments presented during the course of the trial, as well as a few new things:
    • Where is the harm? Arm never claimed any harm or damage
    • It sent letters to over 40 OEMs suggesting Qualcomm had breached the Arm contract
    • Processor design, RTL code, and other Nuvia Technology were not a derivative of Arm technology
    • There was no assignment of #ALA to Qualcomm – Qualcomm ALA covers all its products (Contract states “work done by itself & others”)
    • Arm Architecture Reference Manual is a publicly available document, not confidential
    • The primary reason for Arm to bring this case is to increase revenue from Qualcomm, done at the behest of the Chair of the Board
Unlike Arm, Qualcomm’s approach was a little bit emotional, mentioning harm to the chip industry and ecosystem, etc.,