What I have found so far with updated material.OEM: Partnerships are not alway listed in that like NXO have no place to advertise their brand ie. like an extension cord or case would have.
Qualcomm expects their parteners to partner up with other companies to improve the position they hold.
Nvidia, ARM, Qualcomm, OEM's in So. Korea ie. Samsung.
It seems to me NXO has positioned themselves well.
As far as NXO being on the Snapdragon 888 series or not I don't know. They may have to wait for one of the reveal dates for Samsung or others at those companies summits.
OEM is just being on board one of the chips that is being sold to a customer such as Samsung.
Patents: Could NXO have an agreement with Nvidia or Qualcomm to have a package patent? Pooling patents:
In patent law, a patent pool is a consortium of at least two companies agreeing to cross-license patents relating to a particular technology. The creation of a patent pool can save patentees and licensees time and money, and, in case of blocking patents, it may also be the only reasonable method for making the invention available to the public.[1] Competition law issues are usually important when a large consortium is formed.
Does Qualcomm patent pool? Yes. Cost effective too. Benefits for all licensors
The inherently larger scale in patent pooling than in bilateral licensing makes this all more cost effective for both licensors and licensees in IoT.
Some major cellular SEP owners— including Ericsson, InterDigital, Nokia and Qualcomm—significantly monetize their patents by licensing cellular device OEMs directly. Others who are also major device implementers—including Huawei, LG and Samsung—significantly reduce or eliminate their device licensing costs through cross-licensing, also directly, with other cellular device OEMs. Many more cellular SEP owners have too few SEPs to profitably support their own cash-royalty generating licensing programs. Instead, while some license their video-codec SEPs through patent pooling, others’ cellular SEPs have largely remained dormant, for “defensive” purposes.
For decades now, cellular patent pools—including those for 3G, administered by Via Licensing and SISVEL subsidiary 3G Licensing SA, and for 4G, administered by SISVEL and Via Licensing—all failed to make any significant impact versus bilateral licensing, and, as I predicted in 2010, had no prospect of doing so.