Like if you bought a non-profit and Microsoft told you thay you can't use your pre-existing Visual Studio licence to edit their code, but need to re-negotiate theirs.
Arm seems to also have given Nuvia access to the technology behind their own cortex cores.
Arm sees anything that nuvia developed as a derivate of their IP and therefore subject to the agreed upon licencing term.
I think that removes some of the weird feeling around the idea of just sharing patents and entering a licensing agreement, but even if arm only gave patent(licences) rights, it would still mean that all of the products of nuvia would be based on that ip.
I don't think your example is applicable, in your situation the product is not a derivate of visual studio, but visual studio is just a tool.
I think this fits the situation better:
You want to write a custom video decoder and because you are small and new a bigger company allows you to use their super fast video decoder and some of their patents if you only sell your software for ios smartphones for a good price.
If you breach any of this, your licence to use their encoder as a base for your products expires and you can't use any of their patents.
A more apt analogy would be if Microsoft gave the source code of Office to a research center and IBM then tried to resell their version of the office suite after buying the research center.
To me out feels very similar to how a spyware company might want to buy a VPN just for their personal data. Except that here there is an actual contract forbidding this.
My uninformed opinion is that Qualcomm is perfectly allowed to keep all the assets and artifacts that Nuvia produced, but is not allowed to create chips based on them
No, the analogy above was correct. Qualcomm wants to use the license they already had.