COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Product Warranties The Company’s standard manufacturer's warranty period to consumers for TiVo-enabled DVRs is 90 days for parts and labor from the date of consumer purchase, and from 91-365 days for parts only. Within the limited warranty period, consumers are offered a no-charge exchange for TiVo-enabled DVRs returned due to product defect, within 90 days from the date of consumer purchase. Thereafter, consumers may exchange a TiVo-enabled DVR with a product defect for a variable charge. The Company also includes a warranty through its Continual Care program to TiVo-Owned customers who use Roamio and BOLT DVRs for as long as they are monthly or annual subscribers to our service. The Company recognizes the cost associated with the Continual Care warranties at the time of the DVR sale. As of July 31, 2016 and January 31, 2016 , the accrued warranty reserve was $250,000 and $401,000 , respectively. The Company’s accrued warranty reserve is included in accrued liabilities in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets. The Company also offers its TiVo-Owned customers who purchase a lifetime subscription a separately priced optional 2 -year and 3 -year extended warranties. The Company defers and amortizes cost and revenue associated with the sales of these extended warranties over the warranty period or until a warranty is redeemed. Additionally, the Company offers its MSO customers separately priced optional 3 -year extended warranties. The Company recognizes the revenues associated with the sale of these MSO extended warranties over the second and third year of the warranty period. The extended warranty for MSOs applies through the end of the period of warranty. As of July 31, 2016 , the extended warranty deferred revenue and cost was $1.4 million and $127,000 , respectively. As of January 31, 2016 , the extended warranty deferred revenue and cost was $1.9 million and $180,000 , respectively. Indemnification Arrangements The Company undertakes indemnification obligations in its ordinary course of business. For instance, the Company has undertaken to indemnify its underwriters and certain investors in connection with the issuance and sale of its securities and the Company provides indemnification for its directors and officers in accordance with Delaware law. The Company has also undertaken to indemnify certain customers and business partners for, among other things, the licensing of its products, the sale of its DVRs, and the provision of engineering and consulting services. Pursuant to these agreements, the Company may indemnify the other party for certain losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party in connection with various types of claims, which may include, without limitation, intellectual property infringement, advertising and consumer disclosure laws, certain tax liabilities, negligence and intentional acts in the performance of services and violations of laws, including certain violations of securities laws with respect to underwriters and investors. The term of these indemnification obligations is generally perpetual. The Company’s obligation to provide indemnification under its agreements with customer and business partners would arise in the event that a third party filed a claim against one of the parties that was covered by the Company’s indemnification obligation. As an example, if a third party sued a customer for intellectual property infringement and the Company agreed to indemnify that customer against such claims, its obligation would be triggered. The Company is unable to estimate with any reasonable accuracy the liability that may be incurred pursuant to its indemnification obligations, if any. Variables affecting any such assessment include but are not limited to: the nature of the claim asserted; the relative merits of the claim; the financial ability of the party suing the indemnified party to engage in protracted litigation; the number of parties seeking indemnification; the nature and amount of damages claimed by the party suing the indemnified party; and the willingness of such party to engage in settlement negotiations. Due to the nature of the Company’s potential indemnity liability, its indemnification obligations could range from immaterial to having a material adverse impact on its financial position and its ability to continue operation in the ordinary course of business. Under certain circumstances, the Company may have recourse through its insurance policies that would enable it to recover from its insurance company some or all amounts paid pursuant to its indemnification obligations. The Company does not have any assets held either as collateral or by third parties that, upon the occurrence of an event requiring it to indemnify a customer, the Company could obtain and liquidate to recover all or a portion of the amounts paid pursuant to its indemnification obligations. Legal Matters From time to time, the Company is involved in numerous lawsuits as well as subject to various legal proceedings, claims, threats of litigation, and investigations in the ordinary course of business, including claims of alleged infringement of third-party patents and other intellectual property rights, commercial, employment and other matters. The Company assesses potential liabilities in connection with each lawsuit and threatened lawsuits and accrues an estimated loss for these loss contingencies if both of the following conditions are met: information available prior to issuance of the financial statements indicates that it is probable that a liability has been incurred at the date of the financial statements and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. While certain matters to which the Company is a party specify the damages claimed, such claims may not represent reasonably possible losses. Given the inherent uncertainties of the litigation, the ultimate outcome of these matters cannot be predicted at this time, nor can the amount of possible loss or range of loss, if any, be reasonably estimated. As of July 31, 2016, the Company has not accrued any pre-judgment liability for any lawsuits filed against the Company, as the Company has neither determined that it is probable that a liability has been incurred at the date of the financial statements nor that the amount of any loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company expenses legal costs as they are incurred. On September 8, 2015, the Company filed a complaint against Samsung Electronics Co., LTD, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (“Samsung”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint asserts U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389, titled “Multimedia Time Warping System,” U.S. Patent No. 6,792,195, titled “Method And Apparatus Implementing Random Access And Time-Based Functions On A Continuous Stream Of Formatted Digital Data,” U.S. Patent No. 7,558,472, titled “Multimedia Signal Processing System,” and U.S. Patent No. 8,457,476, titled “Multimedia Signal Processing System.” The Complaint claims that Samsung infringes the Company’s patents by making and selling Samsung DVRs and mobile devices, and related software, that fall within the scope of one or more claims of the Company’s patents. The Company's complaint also claims that Samsung’s infringement is willful, and seeks, among other things, an unspecified amount in damages as well as an injunction. On November 17, 2015, Samsung filed an answer denying the Company’s allegations. On February 11, 2016, Samsung amended its answer to assert U.S. Patent No. 5,978,043, titled “TV Graphical User Interface That Provides Customized Lists Of Programming,” U.S. Patent No. 6,181,333, titled “Television Graphical User Interface Having Channel And Program Sorting Capabilities,” U.S. Patent No. 7,231,592, titled “Method And Apparatus For A Home Network Auto-Tree Builder,” and U.S. Patent No. 8,233,090, titled “Method Of Linkage-Viewing TV Broadcasting Program Between Mobile Communication Apparatus And Digital TV, And Mobile Communication Apparatus And Digital TV Thereof” against the Company. In its amended answer, Samsung counterclaims that the Company infringes Samsung’s patents by making and selling TiVo DVRs, and related software, that fall within the scope of one or more claims of Samsung’s patents. Samsung’s complaint claims that the Company’s infringement is willful, and seeks, among other things, damages in an unspecified amount. On February 22, 2016, the Court issued a preliminary scheduling order, setting jury selection for March 6, 2017. On August 2, 2016, Samsung filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,389 with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. On August 12, 2016, Samsung filed two petitions for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,558,472, and two petitions for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,476, with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The Company expects to incur material expenses in connection with this matter. On November 24, 2015, Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation & Dolby International AB (“Dolby”) formally notified TiVo that TiVo was in material breach of certain provisions in license agreements with Dolby and that TiVo had 30 days to cure the breaches or Dolby would terminate those license agreements. Dolby alleged that TiVo owed Dolby approximately $1.7 million in connection with TiVo’s alleged failure to properly report and pay royalties for sales of certain TiVo hardware and software products, including accrued interest. Dolby further alleged that TiVo owed Dolby approximately $8.7 million in connection with certain third-party hardware products that run TiVo software. TiVo notified Dolby that it does not agree with the results of its audit nor with its assertions that TiVo’s activities in connection with third-party hardware products in any way breach any of TiVo’s license agreements with Dolby. In late December 2015, in the interest of avoiding termination of those license agreements, TiVo tendered the $1.7 million sum, subject to a reservation of rights. The Company expensed $1.1 million as cost of revenues and $0.4 million as interest expense and other income (expense) in the fiscal year ended January 31, 2016. The remaining $0.2 million was expensed in prior periods. On July 25, 2016, TiVo and Dolby executed an agreement to settle the rest of the outstanding dispute for an immaterial amount. On July 14, 2016, alleged stockholders of TiVo filed a putative class action captioned Northern California Pipe Trades Trust Fund, et al. v. Peter Aquino, et al., Case Number 12560, in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Delaware Action”). The defendants are the five members of the TiVo board of directors who approved the Merger Agreement. The complaint in the Delaware Action alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to TiVo’s stockholders by failing to disclose all material facts concerning the Transactions described in the draft joint proxy statement/prospectus filed on June 6, 2016, and as amended on July 8, 2016. The complaint in the Delaware Action seeks orders: declaring that the action is properly maintainable as a class action; declaring that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties; enjoining consummation of the Transactions unless and until full disclosure is made of all material information; awarding plaintiffs their costs and disbursements, including attorneys’, accountants’, and experts’ fees; and awarding such other and further relief as is just and equitable. On July 14, 2016, plaintiffs in the Delaware Action filed a motion for expedited proceedings. On July 25, 2016, the defendants filed an opposition brief with the court. On July 29, 2016, following the filing of the July 25 Amendment to the S-4, the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action voluntarily dismissed their litigation as moot. On August 3 and August 10, 2016, alleged stockholders of TiVo filed putative class actions captioned Rebecca Graham v. TiVo, Inc., et al., Case Number 16-cv-04367-LHK, and Melvyn Klein v. TiVo, Inc., et al., Case Number 16-cv-04503, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (together, the "California Federal Actions"). The defendants in the California Federal Actions include TiVo and the five members of the TiVo board of directors who approved the Merger Agreement. The Klein action also names the remaining members of the TiVo board of directors, Rovi Corporation, Titan Technologies Corporation, Nova Acquisition Sub, Inc., and Titan Acquisition Sub, Inc. as defendants. The complaints in the California Federal Actions allege that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder by failing to disclose all material facts concerning the Transactions in the draft joint proxy statement/prospectus filed on June 6, 2016, and as amended on July 8, July 25, and August 2, 2016. The complaints in the California Federal Actions seek orders: declaring that the actions are properly maintainable as class actions; declaring that the joint proxy statement/prospectus is materially misleading and contains omissions of material fact in violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder; preliminarily and permanently enjoining defendants from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the Transactions unless and until defendants disclose the alleged material information omitted from the joint proxy statement/prospectus; directing the board of directors to disseminate a proxy statement/prospectus that does not contain any untrue statements of material fact and that states all material facts required in it to make the statements contained therein not misleading; awarding plaintiff and the proposed class rescissory damages, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, to the extent the Transactions are consummated; awarding plaintiff the costs and disbursements of this action, including attorneys' and expert fees and expenses; awarding extraordinary, equitable, and/or injunctive relief as permitted by law; and granting such other and further equitable relief as the court may deem just and proper. On August 23, 2016, the plaintiffs, TiVo, and the director defendants in the California Federal Actions filed a stipulation of dismissal. Pursuant to the stipulation, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the California Federal Actions, acknowledging that the disclosures in TiVo's Form 8-K dated August 11, 2016 mooted plaintiffs' claims. The stipulation asks the court to retain jurisdiction for the sole purpose of addressing any application for attorneys' fees and expenses plaintiffs may make in connection with the mooted claims. |