Yeah, equally there is a document that says what Qualcomm's lawyers want it to say. Sorting through both and providing a summary is part of "journalism".
And a quote from it, where Qualcomm states that it has the rights to use the IP from Nuvia because it has a ARM-license covering the same IP as Nuvia's ARM-license:
"3. Qualcomm has its own license agreements with ARM, under which Qualcomm has licensed and paid for the same intellectual property that NUVIA licensed under its own separate agreements with ARM. Therefore, even though ARM terminated the NUVIA licenses, Qualcomm owns independent licenses for the same ARM technology and information"
-
To this statement of ARM: "Upon termination, the Nuvia ALA requires Nuvia to cease using and destroy any technology developed under the Nuvia ALA, as well as cease using Arm’s trademarks in connection with any technology developed under the Nuvia ALA"
The response of Qualcomm is this: "4. The notion that ARM has the right to control technology that is not ARM’s—and worse yet, to ask Defendants to destroy their innovation and inventions unless substantial monetary tribute is paid to ARM—offends customary norms of technology ownership, as well as NUVIA’s and Qualcomm’s rights under their agreements with ARM."
and this: "7. ARM’s position is a threat to the industry generally. Unless this Court rejects ARM’s arguments, ARM’s extreme position could be weaponized against all of its licensees, allowing ARM to claim ownership over all its licensees’ innovations."
-
So, as an amateur reading through the case, there is sufficient information to conclude that ARM has a contract that limits the use of Nuvia IP to Nuvia alone, and Qualcomm tries to argue that these terms are "offending" and "a threat to the industry".
--> So, there is obviously no disagreement that these crucial terms are in fact part of the ARM/Nuvia License contract.
