| Commitments and Contingencies | Note 10: Commitments and Contingencies Leases The following represents future minimum lease obligations under non-cancelable operating leases as of September 29, 2017 (in millions): Remainder of 2017 $ 9.7 2018 32.0 2019 27.2 2020 19.6 2021 14.3 Thereafter 57.8 Total (1) $ 160.6 (1) Excludes $16.6 million of expected sublease income. Environmental Contingencies The Company’s headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona is located on property that is a “Superfund” site, which is a property listed on the National Priorities List and subject to clean-up activities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”). Motorola and Freescale have been involved in the cleanup of on-site solvent contaminated soil and groundwater and off-site contaminated groundwater pursuant to consent decrees with the State of Arizona. As part of the Company’s August 4, 1999 recapitalization (the “Recapitalization”), Motorola retained responsibility for this contamination, and Motorola and Freescale have agreed to indemnify the Company with respect to remediation costs and other costs or liabilities related to this matter. As part of the Recapitalization, the Company received various manufacturing facilities, one of which is located in the Czech Republic. In regards to this site, the Company has ongoing remediation projects to respond to releases of hazardous substances that occurred prior to the Recapitalization during the years that this facility was operated by government-owned entities. In each case, the remediation project consists primarily of monitoring groundwater wells located on-site and off-site with additional action plans developed to respond in the event activity levels are exceeded at each of the respective locations. The government of the Czech Republic has agreed to indemnify the Company and the respective subsidiaries, subject to specified limitations, for remediation costs associated with this historical contamination. Based upon the information available, total future remediation costs to the Company are not expected to be material. The Company’s design center in East Greenwich, Rhode Island is located on property that has localized soil contamination. In connection with the purchase of the facility, the Company entered into a settlement agreement and covenant not to sue with the State of Rhode Island. This agreement requires that remedial actions be undertaken and a quarterly groundwater monitoring program be initiated by the former owners of the property. Any costs to the Company in connection with this matter have not been, and, based on the information available, are not expected to be, material. As a result of the acquisition of AMIS, the Company is a “primary responsible party” to an environmental remediation and cleanup at AMIS’s former corporate headquarters in Santa Clara, California. Costs incurred by AMIS have included implementation of the clean-up plan, operations and maintenance of remediation systems, and other project management costs. However, AMIS’s former parent company, a subsidiary of Nippon Mining, contractually agreed to indemnify AMIS and the Company for any obligations relating to environmental remediation and cleanup at this location. Any costs to the Company in connection with this matter have not been, and, based on the information available, are not expected to be, material. The Company’s former front-end manufacturing location in Aizu, Japan is located on property where soil and ground water contamination have been detected. The Company believes that the contamination originally occurred during a time when the facility was operated by a prior owner. The Company has worked with local authorities to implement a remediation plan and expects remaining remediation costs to be covered by insurance. Any costs to the Company in connection with this matter have not been, and, based on the information available, are not expected to be, material. Through its acquisition of Fairchild, the Company acquired facilities in South Portland, Maine and West Jordan, Utah. These two facilities have ongoing environmental remediation projects to respond to certain releases of hazardous substances that occurred prior to the leveraged recapitalization of Fairchild from its former parent company, National Semiconductor Corporation, which is now owned by Texas Instruments, Inc. Although the Company may incur certain liabilities with respect to these remediation projects, pursuant to the asset purchase agreement entered into in connection with the Fairchild recapitalization, National Semiconductor Corporation agreed to indemnify Fairchild, without limitation and for an indefinite period of time, for all future costs related to these projects. Additionally, under the 1999 asset purchase agreement pursuant to which Fairchild purchased the power device business of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”), Samsung agreed to indemnify Fairchild in an amount up to $150.0 million for remediation costs and other liabilities related to historical contamination at Samsung’s Bucheon, South Korea operations. Any costs to the Company in connection with this matter have not been, and, based on the information available, are not expected to be, material. The Company was notified by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) that it has been identified as a “potentially responsible party” (“PRP”) under CERCLA in the Chemetco Superfund matter. Chemetco is a defunct reclamation services supplier that operated in Illinois at what is now a Superfund site. The Company used Chemetco for reclamation services. The EPA is pursuing Chemetco customers for contribution to the site cleanup activities. The Company has joined a PRP group which is cooperating with the EPA in the evaluation and funding of the cleanup. Any costs to the Company in connection with this matter have not been, and, based on the information available, are not expected to be, material. Financing Contingencies In the ordinary course of business, the Company provides standby letters of credit or other guarantee instruments to certain parties initiated by either the Company or its subsidiaries, as required for transactions such as, but not limited to, material purchase commitments, agreements to mitigate collection risk, leases, utilities or customs guarantees. As of September 29, 2017 , the Company's Revolving Credit Facility included $15.0 million of availability for the issuance of letters of credit. There were $0.4 million million of letters of credit outstanding under the Revolving Credit Facility as of September 29, 2017 , which reduces the Company's borrowing capacity. The Company also had outstanding guarantees and letters of credit outside of its Revolving Credit Facility totaling $5.7 million as of September 29, 2017 . As part of obtaining financing in the ordinary course of business, the Company has issued guarantees related to certain of its capital lease obligations, equipment financing, lines of credit and real estate mortgages, which totaled $125.1 million as of September 29, 2017 . The Company is also a guarantor of SCI LLC's non-collateralized loan with SMBC, which had a balance of $132.1 million as of September 29, 2017 . See Note 7: ''Long-Term Debt'' for additional information. Based on historical experience and information currently available, the Company believes that it will not be required to make payments under the standby letters of credit or guarantee arrangements for the foreseeable future. Indemnification Contingencies The Company is a party to a variety of agreements entered into in the ordinary course of business pursuant to which it may be obligated to indemnify the other parties for certain liabilities that arise out of or relate to the subject matter of the agreements. Some of the agreements entered into by the Company require it to indemnify the other party against losses due to IP infringement, property damage (including environmental contamination), personal injury, failure to comply with applicable laws, the Company’s negligence or willful misconduct or breach of representations and warranties and covenants related to such matters as title to sold assets. The Company faces risk of exposure to warranty and product liability claims in the event that its products fail to perform as expected or such failure of its products results, or is alleged to result, in economic damage, bodily injury or property damage. In addition, if any of the Company’s designed products are alleged to be defective, the Company may be required to participate in their recall. Depending on the significance of any particular customer and other relevant factors, the Company may agree to provide more favorable rights to such customer for valid defective product claims. The Company and its subsidiaries provide for indemnification of directors, officers and other persons in accordance with limited liability company operating agreements, certificates of incorporation, by-laws, articles of association or similar organizational documents, as the case may be. Section 145 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”) authorizes a court to award, or a corporation’s board of directors to grant, indemnity to directors and officers under certain circumstances and subject to certain limitations. The terms of Section 145 of the DGCL are sufficiently broad to permit indemnification under certain circumstances for liabilities, including reimbursement of expenses incurred, arising under the Exchange Act. As permitted by the DGCL, the Company’s Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, as amended (the “Certificate of Incorporation”), contains provisions relating to the limitation of liability and indemnification of directors and officers. The Certificate of Incorporation eliminates the personal liability of each of the Company’s directors to the fullest extent permitted by Section 102(b)(7) of the DGCL, as it may be amended or supplemented, and provides that the Company will indemnify its directors and officers to the fullest extent permitted by Section 145 of the DGCL, as amended from time to time. The Company has entered into indemnification agreements with each of its directors and executive officers. The form of agreement (the “Indemnification Agreement”) provides, subject to certain exceptions and conditions specified in the Indemnification Agreement, that the Company will indemnify each indemnitee to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware law against all expenses, judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement actually and reasonably incurred by such person in connection with a proceeding or claim in which such person is involved because of his or her status as one of the Company’s directors or executive officers. In addition, the Indemnification Agreement provides that the Company will, to the extent not prohibited by law and subject to certain exceptions and repayment conditions, advance specified indemnifiable expenses incurred by the indemnitee in connection with such proceeding or claim. The foregoing description of the Indemnification Agreement does not purport to be complete and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full and complete terms of the Indemnification Agreement, which is filed as Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the Company on February 25, 2016. The Company also maintains directors’ and officers’ insurance policies that indemnify its directors and officers against various liabilities, including certain liabilities under the Exchange Act, that might be incurred by any director or officer in his or her capacity as such. The Fairchild Agreement provides for indemnification and insurance rights in favor of Fairchild’s then current and former directors, officers and employees. Specifically, the Company has agreed that, for no fewer than six years following the Fairchild acquisition, the Company will: (a) indemnify and hold harmless each such indemnitee against losses and expenses (including advancement of attorneys’ fees and expenses) in connection with any proceeding asserted against the indemnified party in connection with such person’s servings as a director, officer, employee or other fiduciary of Fairchild or its subsidiaries prior to the effective time of the acquisition; (b) maintain in effect all provisions of the certificate of incorporation or bylaws of Fairchild or any of its subsidiaries or any other agreements of Fairchild or any of its subsidiaries with any indemnified party regarding elimination of liability, indemnification of officers, directors and employees and advancement of expenses in existence on the date of the Fairchild Agreement for acts or omissions occurring prior to the effective time of the acquisition; and (c) subject to certain qualifications, provide to Fairchild’s then current directors and officers an insurance and indemnification policy that provides coverage for events occurring prior to the effective time of the acquisition that is no less favorable than Fairchild’s then-existing policy, or, if insurance coverage that is no less favorable is unavailable, the best available coverage. While the Company’s future obligations under certain agreements may contain limitations on liability for indemnification, other agreements do not contain such limitations and under such agreements it is not possible to predict the maximum potential amount of future payments due to the conditional nature of the Company’s obligations and the unique facts and circumstances involved in each particular agreement. Historically, payments made by the Company under any of these indemnities have not had a material effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Additionally, the Company does not believe that any amounts that it may be required to pay under these indemnities in the future will be material to the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Legal Matters From time to time, the Company is party to various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business, including indemnification claims, claims of alleged infringement of patents, trademarks, copyrights and other intellectual property rights, claims of alleged non-compliance with contract provisions and claims related to alleged violations of laws and regulations. The Company regularly evaluates the status of the legal proceedings in which it is involved to assess whether a loss is probable or there is a reasonable possibility that a loss, or an additional loss, may have been incurred and determine if accruals are appropriate. If accruals are not appropriate, the Company further evaluates each legal proceeding to assess whether an estimate of possible loss or range of possible loss can be made for disclosure. Although litigation is inherently unpredictable, the Company believes that it has adequate provisions for any probable and estimable losses. It is possible, nevertheless, that the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity could be materially and adversely affected in any particular period by the resolution of a legal proceeding. The Company’s estimates do not represent its maximum exposure. Legal expenses related to defense, negotiations, settlements, rulings and advice of outside legal counsel are expensed as incurred. The Company is currently involved in a variety of legal matters that arise in the ordinary course of business. Based on information currently available, except as disclosed below, the Company is not involved in any pending or threatened legal proceedings that it believes could reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. The litigation process and the administrative process at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) are inherently uncertain, and the Company cannot guarantee that the outcome of these matters will be favorable to it. Patent Litigation with Power Integrations, Inc. There are seven outstanding civil litigation proceedings with Power Integrations, Inc. (“PI”), five of which were pending between PI and Fairchild prior to the acquisition of Fairchild. The Company is vigorously defending the lawsuits filed by PI and believes that it has strong defenses. There are also nine outstanding administrative proceedings in which the Company is challenging the validity of PI patents at the USPTO and ten outstanding administrative proceedings in which PI is challenging the validity of the Company's patents at the USPTO. The outcome of any litigation is inherently uncertain and difficult to predict. Any estimate or statement in this Form 10-Q regarding any reserve or the estimated range of possible losses is made solely in compliance with applicable GAAP requirements and is not a statement or admission that the Company is or should be liable in any amount, or that any arguments, motions or appeals before any Court lack merit or are subject to impeachment. To the contrary, the Company believes that it has significant and meritorious grounds for judgment in its favor with respect to all of the PI cases and that the Company’s appeals or motions currently pending at the district court level will significantly reduce or eliminate all prior adverse jury verdicts. Subject to the foregoing, as of the date of the filing of this Form 10-Q, the Company estimates its range of possible losses for all PI cases to be between approximately $4 million and $20 million . Power Integrations v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et al. (October 20, 2004, Delaware, 1:04-cv-01371-LPS): PI filed this lawsuit in 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Fairchild and its wholly owned subsidiary, Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation, alleging that certain of Fairchild’s pulse width modulation (“PWM”) integrated circuit products infringed four PI U.S. patents and seeking a permanent injunction preventing Fairchild from manufacturing, selling or offering the products for sale in the United States, or from importing the products into the United States, as well as money damages for past infringement. In October 2006, a jury returned a verdict finding that 33 of Fairchild’s PWM products willfully infringed one or more of seven claims asserted in the four patents and assessed damages against Fairchild. Fairchild voluntarily stopped U.S. sales and importation of those products in 2007 and has been offering replacement products since 2006. In December 2008, the judge overseeing the case reduced the jury’s 2006 damages award from $34.0 million to approximately $6.1 million and ordered a new trial on the issue of willfulness. Following the new trial held in June 2009, the court found Fairchild’s infringement to have been willful, and in January 2011 the court awarded PI final damages in the amount of $12.2 million . Fairchild appealed the final damages award, willfulness finding, and other issues to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In March 2013, the Court of Appeals vacated substantially all of the damages award, ruling that there was no basis upon which a reasonable jury could find Fairchild liable for induced infringement. The Court of Appeals also vacated the earlier judgment of willful patent infringement. The full Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States have since denied PI’s request to review the Court of Appeals ruling. The Court of Appeals instructed the lower court to conduct further proceedings to determine damages based on approximately $500,000 to $750,000 worth of sales and imports of affected products, and this case remains in the District Court of Delaware on this basis. The Company believes that damages on the basis of that level of infringing activity would not be material. PI has further requested the lower court to reinstate the earlier judgment of willful infringement, and that request remains pending with the court. Power Integrations v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et al. (May 23, 2008, Delaware, 1:08-cv-00309-LPS): This lawsuit was initiated by PI in 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Fairchild, Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary, System General Corporation (now named Fairchild (Taiwan) Corporation), alleging infringement of three patents. Of the three patents asserted in this lawsuit, two had been asserted against Fairchild and Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation in the October 2004 lawsuit described above. In 2011, PI added a fourth patent to this case. On October 14, 2008, Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation and System General Corporation filed a patent infringement lawsuit against PI in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that certain PWM integrated circuit products infringe one or more of two U.S. patents owned by System General Corporation. The lawsuit sought monetary damages and an injunction preventing the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale or importation of PI products found to infringe the asserted patents. The lawsuits were consolidated and heard together in a jury trial in April 2012, during which the jury found that PI infringed one of the two U.S. patents owned by Fairchild (Taiwan) Corporation and upheld the validity of both of the Fairchild (Taiwan) Corporation patents. In the same verdict, the jury found that Fairchild infringed two of four U.S. patents asserted by PI and that Fairchild had induced its customers to infringe the asserted patents. (The court later ruled that Fairchild infringed one other asserted PI patent that the jury found was not infringed.) The jury also upheld the validity of the asserted PI patents. On June 30, 2014, the court issued an order enjoining Fairchild from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing into the United States the products found to infringe the PI patents as well as certain products that were similar to the products found to infringe. Willfulness and damages will be determined in the next phase of the case. Fairchild and PI appealed the liability phase of this trial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which heard arguments in July 2016 and issued a decision in December 2016. In the decision, the appeals court vacated the jury’s finding that Fairchild induced infringement of PI’s patents, held that one of PI’s patents was invalid, vacated the permanent injunction against Fairchild, reversed the jury’s finding that PI infringed the Fairchild (Taiwan) Corporation patent, and remanded the case back to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with these rulings. The Company expects a re-trial on the remaining issues in 2018. Power Integrations v. Fairchild Semiconductor International Inc. et al. (November 4, 2009, Northern District of California, 3:09-cv-05235-MMC): In 2009, PI sued Fairchild in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that several of Fairchild’s products infringe three of PI’s patents. Fairchild filed counterclaims asserting that PI infringed two Fairchild patents. A trial was held in February 2014 on two PI patents and one Fairchild patent. In March 2014, the jury found that Fairchild willfully infringed both PI patents, awarding PI $105.0 million in damages and finding that PI did not infringe the Fairchild patent. Both parties filed various post-trial motions, which were denied by the court with the exception of Fairchild’s motion to set aside the jury’s determination that it acted willfully. In September 2014, the court granted Fairchild’s motion and determined that, as a matter of law, Fairchild’s actions were not willful. Fairchild continued to challenge several other aspects of the verdict during post-trial review. Specifically, Fairchild asserted that the damages award included legal and evidentiary defects that were inconsistent with recent rulings by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In November 2014, the trial court ruled that the jury lacked sufficient evidence on which to base its damages award and, consequently, vacated the $105.0 million verdict and ordered a second trial on damages. In February 2015, the court denied PI’s request to enjoin the Fairchild products that were found to infringe, finding, among other things, that the evidence at trial failed to establish a causal connection between the alleged harm and the alleged infringement. The court ruled that PI could request an injunction after the second trial on damages, but PI has since indicated that it no longer intends to pursue a permanent injunction. The second damages trial was held in December 2015. In December 2015, a jury awarded PI $139.8 million in damages. Fairchild filed a number of post-trial motions challenging the verdict on several grounds, including several that are similar to challenges to the earlier damages verdict in the case, and the court ruled against Fairchild on these motions and awarded PI approximately $7.0 million in pre-judgment interest. Following the court’s rulings on these issues, PI moved the court for the enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees in January 2016, and Fairchild opposed that motion. On January 23, 2017 the court reinstated the jury’s willful infringement finding from March 2014, but denied PI’s motion for enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees in its entirety. The Company has filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit with respect to the current damages award as well as the 2014 verdict finding that PI’s patents were infringed and valid. The appeal briefing is complete, and the parties are currently waiting for the Federal Circuit to schedule oral arguments. On May 26, 2017, the district court ordered Fairchild to obtain a bond for the judgment pending appeal, and on June 22, 2017, the district court accepted Fairchild’s bond and stayed execution of judgment. All claims of the two PI patents found to be infringed by Fairchild are also under review in already-instituted inter partes administrative proceedings at the USPTO. On September 22, 2017, the USPTO issued a Final Written Decision regarding one of the patents at issue in this litigation, which held that all of the claims asserted by PI in this litigation are unpatentable. On October 18, 2017, the USPTO issued a Final Written Decision regarding the administrative proceeding for the other patent at issue in this litigation, which held that all of the claims from the patent asserted by PI in this litigation are unpatentable. PI may appeal the USPTO’s Final Written Decision regarding the unpatentability of those claims. The impact of the USPTO’s Final Written Decisions on the district court judgment is uncertain at this stage of the proceedings. Fairchild Semiconductor International Inc. et al. v. Power Integrations (May 1, 2012, Delaware, 1:12-cv-00540-LPS): In May 2012, Fairchild sued PI in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The lawsuit accuses PI’s LinkSwitch-PH LED power conversion products of violating three of Fairchild’s patents. PI filed counterclaims of patent infringement against Fairchild, asserting five PI patents. Of those five patents, the court granted Fairchild summary judgment of no infringement on one , and PI voluntarily withdrew a second and was forced to remove a third patent during the trial, which began in May 2015. In June 2015, the jury found that PI induced infringement of Fairchild’s patent rights and awarded Fairchild $2.4 million in damages. The same jury found that Fairchild infringed a PI patent and awarded PI damages of $100,000 . Based on the December 2016 appellate court decision in the litigation filed in Delaware in 2008 (described above), on July 13, 2017, the district court vacated the jury’s finding that PI infringed Fairchild’s patent. The court has yet to enter a final judgment in this case due to continued overlapping legal issues from the appellate decision in the 2008 Delaware case. Power Integrations v. Fairchild Semiconductor International Inc. et al. (October 21, 2015, Northern District of California, 3:15-cv-04854 MMC): In 2015, PI filed another complaint for patent infringement against Fairchild in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging Fairchild’s switch mode power supply products willfully infringed two PI patents related to frequency jitter and light load frequency reduction. In the complaint, PI is seeking a permanent injunction, unspecified damages, a trebling of damages, and an accounting of costs and fees. Fairchild answered and counterclaimed, alleging infringement by PI of four Fairchild patents related to aspects of PI’s power conversion products. PI has asked the USPTO to institute inter partes administrative proceedings on certain of the asserted claims of Fairchild’s patents. The lawsuit is in its earliest stages and has been stayed pending the outcome of the Company’s administrative challenges to the two PI patents asserted against Fairchild. Power Integrations v. ON Semiconductor Corporation, and Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC (November 1, 2016, Northern District of California, 5:16-cv-06371-BLF and 5:17-cv-03189): This lawsuit was initiated by PI in 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and SCI LLC (collectively, “ON Semi”), alleging infringement of six PI patents. Of the six PI patents asserted in this lawsuit, two overlap with ON Semi’s declaratory judgment claims in its August 2016 lawsuit in Arizona (which has since been consolidated with this lawsuit) and are subject to ON Semi’s administrative challenges to those patents currently pending at the USPTO. In the complaint, PI alleges infringement and seeks a permanent injunction, unspecified damages, treble damages and an accounting of costs and fees. On August 11, 2016, ON Semi, filed a lawsuit against PI in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (August 11, 2016, Arizona, 2:16-cv-02720-BLF). In the Arizona lawsuit, ON Semi asserted claims of patent infringement on six of its patents related to aspects of PI’s power conversion products. In the complaint, ON Semi sought a permanent injunction, unspecified damages, a trebling of damages and an accounting of costs and fees. The Arizona lawsuit also sought a claim for a declaratory judgment for ON Semi of non-infringement of three of PI’s patents. All three of the PI patents at issue in the declaratory judgment claims are subject to ON Semi’s administrative challenges to those patents currently pending at the USPTO. PI moved to dismiss the Arizona lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction and venue or, alternatively, to transfer the Arizona lawsuit to the Northern District of California based on this lawsuit. On June 6, 2017, the Arizona court transferred the Arizona lawsuit to the Northern District of California, where it has since been consolidated with this lawsuit. As such, the Arizona action is no longer active. On August 14, 2017, ON Semi amended its complaint filed this consolidation action to assert claims of patent infringement on eight of its patents related to aspects of PI’s power conversion products. ON Semi continues to seek a permanent injunction, unspecified damages, treble damages and an accounting of costs and fees. ON Semi’s amended complaint also seeks a declaratory judgment for ON Semi for non-infringement and invalidity of one of PI’s patents. The lawsuit is in its earliest stages. ON Semiconductor Corporation and Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC v. Power Integrations, Inc. (March 9, 2017, District of Delaware, 1:17-cv-00247-LPS-CJB) : ON Semi filed a lawsuit against PI in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting asserted claims of patent infringement on six of its patents directed to aspects of PI’s InnoSwitch family of products. In the complaint, ON Semi is seeking a permanent injunction, unspecified damages, treble damages and an accounting of costs and fees. PI answered ON Semi’s complaint on September 29, 2017 and asserted counterclaims alleging infringement by ON Semi of seven PI patents, certain of which are subject to various invalidity proceedings, including ON Semi’s administrative challenges described below as well as a previous reexamination filed by Fairchild. ON Semi has not yet answered PI’s counterclaims in this case. The lawsuit is in its earliest stages. Administrative Challenges to PI’s Patents Between March and August 2016, SCI LLC petitioned the USPTO to institute 12 inter partes reviews, each requesting cancellation of |
