Unless the contract made with Nuvia states explicitly that a successor has to resign a new agreement, I doubt that Arm has any chance to win in the court.
- Qualcomm’s license doesn’t provide for using third-party developments
- Nuvia’s license doesn’t allow using it on other platforms than servers
- Nuvia’s derived IP is not transferable without ARM agreement
>- Nuvia’s derived IP is not transferable without ARM agreement
Binds Nuvia and Nuvia's license, not Qualcomm.
An analogy I can think of is how sometimes luxury brands give gifts or discounts to celebrities for marketing purposes with contract that forbid resales. (eg [0])
In this case the brand can only sue entities it had a specific contract with.
Back to the case at hand I believe that unless Qualcomm license includes a term along the lines of "You cannot buy Arm's IP unless Arm pre-approves it"[1] to hold Qualcomm culpable of this transfer.
To my understanding Arm used this proibition mainly to terminate Nuvia's license
[0] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=john+cena+sells+car+lawsuit+ford&t...
[1] AFAIK this line might be in their license. I obviously do not have specific knowledge.
"I am a Patent Attorney with 20+ years experience in complex IT contracts"
Or not posting at all.
Definitive statements should demand some relevant experience.
Even if a lawyer comments though their comments will be in context of what every country(s) they work in. International contract law is very complex and nobody can tell you how it works in every country.