{"id":8113,"date":"2026-10-10T05:19:13","date_gmt":"2026-10-10T05:19:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.tantraanalyst.com\/ta\/?p=8113"},"modified":"2026-10-10T05:51:31","modified_gmt":"2026-10-10T05:51:31","slug":"qualcomm-vs-arm-trial-day-5-case-in-jurys-hands-arguments-conclude-in-bench-trial-my-final-take","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.tantraanalyst.com\/ta\/qualcomm-vs-arm-trial-day-5-case-in-jurys-hands-arguments-conclude-in-bench-trial-my-final-take\/","title":{"rendered":"Qualcomm vs. Arm Trial, Day 5 \u2013 Case in Jury\u2019s Hands, Arguments Conclude in Bench Trial, My Final Take"},"content":{"rendered":"

[vc_row fullwidth=”yes”][vc_column][vc_column_text css=”{“margin-bottom“:“35px“}”]<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/span><\/h6>\n
<\/h5>\n
Coverage of previous days: <\/strong><\/span><\/h5>\n
Day 1: Opening Statements, CEOs take the stand<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/h6>\n
Day 2: ALA Commitments and Bloomberg leak in focus<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/h6>\n
Day 3: Focus on License Rates, Judge\u2019s Questions on Remedy, and XXXXXX<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/h6>\n
Day 4: More XXXXX, Companies Rest Their Case, and Other Considerations<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/h6>\n

 <\/p>\n

Summary of Day 5:<\/strong><\/span><\/h5>\n
The day began with closing statements from the plaintiff, Qualcomm, followed by defendant Arm. Qualcomm\u2019s statement was presented jointly by Karen Dunn<\/a> <\/span>and Bill Isaacson<\/a>.<\/span> Karen made a rather emotional and animated presentation. The lawyers reiterated the allegations against Arm: 1) Breach of ALA by not offering OOBs and patches; 2) Breach of TLA by not offering the license in a timely manner, and when offered, it was not in good faith, and charged more than 10% of the previous best deal; 3) Interfering with Qualcomm\u2019s business with Meta by sending letters to its customers and leaking its termination letter to Bloomberg. The statement was sprinkled with key highlights and findings from the testimonies, along with the damage claims. Karen also said this was a fight of principles for Qualcomm.<\/span><\/h6>\n
Arm\u2019s closing statement was presented by its lawyer Gregg LoCascio<\/a><\/span>. His presentation was more businesslike, reiterating Arm\u2019s points denying Qualcomm\u2019s claims: 1) Made a rather new argument which was not ever made during the arguments\u2014OOBs and patches are customizations, and are part of the support and maintenance contract, not ALA; 2) TLA didn\u2019t have the option to request license offers after the first year of the contract; even then Arm offered the license in good faith, and Arm didn\u2019t overcharge Qualcomm; 3) Arm\u2019s publicizing of the license letter didn\u2019t harm Qualcomm at Meta, and whatever damage Qualcomm showed was because of other factors. Arm\u2019s statement also included key highlights from the testimony.<\/span><\/h6>\n
The jury received a long, complex verdict sheet with more than 30 questions and options. They spent a few hours deliberating till end of the day and will continue Tuesday.<\/span><\/h6>\n
While the jury deliberated, the bench trial resumed with testimony from Qualcomm economics expert Eric Posner on \u201cInput Foreclosure,\u201d damage expert Patrick Kennedy, and Arm\u2019s Chief Legal Officer Spencer Collins (both sealed). It concluded with testimony from Arm\u2019s economic expert, Timothy Simcoe.<\/span><\/h6>\n
Both Qualcomm and Arm CEOs and their General Counsels were present today, underscoring the case’s importance to both companies.<\/span><\/h6>\n
Key points from Qualcomm\u2019s closing statement:<\/strong><\/span><\/h5>\n