iz (iz.delete@this.z.x) on September 4, 2022 1:09 am wrote:
> Doug S (foo.delete@this.bar.bar) on September 3, 2022 4:08 pm wrote:
> > ARM's claim that Qualcomm said they had destroyed Nuvia IP may be the most damning. I
> > assume they would not make such a claim if they do not have something in writing stating
> > this.
>
> I can't find that claim in the linked document, what page/number is it?


I must have read the specific claim that Qualcomm asserted they destroyed Nuvia IP elsewhere, but in the lawsuit claim 42 says much the same thing - Qualcomm has acknowledged the termination of Nuvia's license and asserted they are in compliance with the obligations arising from that termination.

42. On April 1, 2022, Qualcomm’s General Counsel sent Arm a letter enclosing a
Nuvia representative’s termination certification. The certification acknowledged—without
objection—that the Nuvia licenses had been terminated. The certification recognized the
obligations upon termination, and asserted that Nuvia was in compliance. Qualcomm and
Nuvia thereby conceded that termination of the Nuvia licenses was appropriate, and that the
termination provisions had been triggered, are binding, and are enforceable.

https://regmedia.co.uk/2022/08/31/pacer_arm_qualcomm.pdf