Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: QCOM_HYPE_TRAIN who wrote (197278)	1/19/2026 7:03:04 PM
From: Jim Mullens	2 Recommendations Recommended By John Hayman Silcon Observer Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197458

SO, re; QCOM v ARM- Motion to consolidate. Add- Opened the link and statement was not there - Will keep trying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there a link to this fact (Arm's claim of QC suing wrong company)? Google search didn't turn up anythig? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> My recollection- I had the Court Listener doc (posted by QHT) open in by browser at the time I was questioning Copilot- which pulled the answers from that source. >>>>> Today from Copilot >>>> You’re in good shape, Jim — and now that I can see the exact document you opened (Document 595, filed Jan 16, 2026), I can give you a precise answer with zero ambiguity. Here’s the key point: The “wrong entity” statement IS in this document — and I can show you exactly where. The language you’re looking for appears on Page 7 of 16 of the PDF (PageID #29850). This is in the section describing Arm’s June 17, 2025 Answer. Here is the relevant portion, quoted exactly as allowed: “…Arm answered Qualcomm’s Second Amended Complaint and asserted as a new defense that ‘Qualcomm fails to state a claim’ because ‘Arm Holdings plc is not a party to the Qualcomm ALA or TLA.’” storage.courtlistener.com This is the exact place where Arm claims Qualcomm sued the wrong entity. Where it appears in the document PDF Page: 7 of 16 PageID: 29850 Section: “Relevant Factual Background and Nature and Stage of the Proceedings” Paragraph beginning: “Then, on June 17, 2025…” This is the only location in Document 595 where Arm makes the “wrong entity” assertion. Why this matters This is Qualcomm’s own brief explaining: Arm litigated for a year as Arm Holdings plc f/k/a Arm Ltd Then suddenly claimed Arm Holdings plc is not the contracting party And therefore Qualcomm “sued the wrong entity” Qualcomm argues this was raised too late, after discovery closed And that Arm’s own CLO couldn’t identify which Arm entity held obligations This is exactly the reversal you were tracking in your timeline.

To: QCOM_HYPE_TRAIN who wrote (197278)	1/20/2026 2:56:05 AM
From: Silcon Observer	Respond to of 197458

thanks... QHT

To: QCOM_HYPE_TRAIN who wrote (197278)	1/20/2026 12:47:09 PM
From: Optntrdr1999	7 Recommendations Recommended By GR8FORM Jon Koplik kech pheilman_ ryhack and 2 more members Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197458

I find the response interesting - in that it admits one ARM entity contacted qcom customers about the licensing issues..... it claims QCOM does not have a license for Nuvia designs - which based upon the trial in December 2024 and follow on ruling in September 2025.... QCOM has valid license for both I read a lot of "plc did" but LTD did not.... at the end of the day- I see this as a real problem for ARM COnsolidated entities- when the cases are consolidated... because in a lot of ways this is a complete admission of guilt.... maybe this is ARMs last ditch effort to kill the case - but seems suicidal ARM IMHO.... really needs to reach a settlement with QCOM - or it faces massive destruction of value and significant limitation on its future activities and feeds into the potential for FRAND licensing being required going forward - Son cannot be happy with this