| Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block] | Commitments and Contingencies Leases The Company leases office space, cars and equipment under operating leases, some of which are non-cancelable, with various expiration dates through December 2026 . The terms of some of the Company’s office leases provide for rental payments on a graduated scale. The Company recognizes rent expense on a straight-line basis over the lease period, and has accrued for rent expense incurred but not paid. Purchase Obligations The Company has entered into various inventory-related purchase agreements with suppliers. Generally, under these agreements, 50% of orders are cancelable by giving notice 46 to 60 days prior to the expected shipment date and 25% of orders are cancelable by giving notice 31 to 45 days prior to the expected shipment date. Orders are non-cancelable within 30 days prior to the expected shipment date. At September 27, 2015 , the Company had approximately $158 million in non-cancelable purchase commitments with suppliers. The Company establishes a loss liability for all products it does not expect to sell for which it has committed purchases from suppliers. Such losses have not been material to date. From time to time the Company’s suppliers procure unique complex components on the Company's behalf. If these components do not meet specified technical criteria or are defective, the Company should not be obligated to purchase the materials. However, disputes may arise as a result and significant resources may be spent resolving such disputes. Warranty Obligation Changes in the Company’s warranty obligation, which is included in other accrued liabilities in the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets, are as follows (in thousands): Three Months Ended Nine Months Ended September 27, September 28, September 27, September 28, Balance as of beginning of the period $ 40,967 $ 41,934 $ 44,888 $ 48,754 Provision for warranty obligation made during the period 22,625 17,175 53,862 44,630 Settlements made during the period (15,664 ) (16,357 ) (50,822 ) (50,632 ) Balance at end of period $ 47,928 $ 42,752 $ 47,928 $ 42,752 Guarantees and Indemnifications The Company, as permitted under Delaware law and in accordance with its Bylaws, indemnifies its officers and directors for certain events or occurrences, subject to certain limits, while the officer or director is or was serving at the Company’s request in such capacity. The term of the indemnification period is for the officer’s or director’s lifetime. The maximum amount of potential future indemnification is unlimited; however, the Company has a Director and Officer Insurance Policy that enables it to recover a portion of any future amounts paid. As a result of its insurance policy coverage, the Company believes the fair value of each indemnification agreement is minimal. Accordingly, the Company has no liabilities recorded for these agreements as of September 27, 2015 . In its sales agreements, the Company typically agrees to indemnify its direct customers, distributors and resellers for any expenses or liability resulting from claimed infringements by the Company's products of patents, trademarks or copyrights of third parties, subject to customary carve outs. The terms of these indemnification agreements are generally perpetual any time after execution date of the respective agreement. The maximum amount of potential future infringement indemnification is generally unlimited. The Company believes the estimated fair value of these agreements is minimal. Accordingly, the Company has no liabilities recorded for these agreements as of September 27, 2015 . Employment Agreements The Company has signed various employment agreements with key executives pursuant to which, if their employment is terminated without cause, such employees are entitled to receive their base salary (and commission or bonus, as applicable) for 52 weeks (for the Chief Executive Officer), 39 weeks (for the Senior Vice President of Worldwide Operations and Support) and up to 26 weeks (for other key executives). Such employees will also continue to have stock options vest for up to a one -year period following such termination without cause. If a termination without cause or resignation for good reason occurs within one year of a change in control, such employees are entitled to full acceleration (for the Chief Executive Officer) and up to two years acceleration (for other key executives) of any unvested portion of his or her equity awards. The Company has no liabilities recorded for these agreements as of September 27, 2015 . Litigation and Other Legal Matters The Company is involved in disputes, litigation, and other legal actions, including, but not limited to, the matters described below. In all cases, at each reporting period, the Company evaluates whether or not a potential loss amount or a potential range of loss is probable and reasonably estimable under the provisions of the authoritative guidance that addresses accounting for contingencies. In such cases, the Company accrues for the amount, or if a range, the Company accrues the low end of the range, only if there is not a better estimate than any other amount within the range, as a component of legal expense within litigation reserves, net. The Company monitors developments in these legal matters that could affect the estimate the Company had previously accrued. In relation to such matters, the Company currently believes that there are no existing claims or proceedings that are likely to have a material adverse effect on its financial position within the next twelve months , or the outcome of these matters is currently not determinable. There are many uncertainties associated with any litigation, and these actions or other third-party claims against the Company may cause the Company to incur costly litigation and/or substantial settlement charges. In addition, the resolution of any intellectual property litigation may require the Company to make royalty payments, which could have an adverse effect in future periods. If any of those events were to occur, the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows could be adversely affected. The actual liability in any such matters may be materially different from the Company's estimates, which could result in the need to adjust the liability and record additional expenses. Ericsson v. NETGEAR, Inc. On September 14, 2010, Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (collectively “Ericsson”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company and defendants D-Link Corporation, D-Link Systems, Inc., Acer, Inc., Acer America Corporation, and Gateway, Inc. in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas alleging that the defendants infringe certain Ericsson patents. The Company has been accused of infringing eight U.S. patents: 5,790,516 (the “'516 Patent”); 6,330,435 (the “'435 Patent”); 6,424,625 (the “'625 Patent”); 6,519,223 (the “'223 Patent”); 6,772,215 (the “'215 Patent”); 5,987,019 (the “'019 Patent”); 6,466,568 (the “'568 Patent”); and 5,771,468 (the “'468 Patent"). Ericsson generally alleges that the Company and the other defendants have infringed and continue to infringe the Ericsson patents through the defendants' IEEE 802.11-compliant products. In addition, Ericsson alleged that the Company infringed the claimed methods and apparatuses of the '468 Patent through the Company's PCMCIA routers. The Company filed its answer to the Ericsson complaint on December 17, 2010 where it asserted the affirmative defenses of noninfringement and invalidity of the asserted patents. On March 1, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to transfer venue to the District Court for the Northern District of California and their memorandum of law in support thereof. On March 21, 2011, Ericsson filed its opposition to the motion, and on April 1, 2011, defendants filed their reply to Ericsson's opposition to the motion to transfer. On June 8, 2011, Ericsson filed an amended complaint that added Dell, Toshiba and Belkin as defendants. At the status conference held on Jun 9, 2011, the Court set a Markman (claim construction) hearing for June 28, 2012 and trial for June 3, 2013. On June 14, 2011, Ericsson submitted its infringement contentions against the Company. On September 29, 2011, the Court denied the defendants' motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California. In advance of the Markman hearing, the parties on March 9, 2012 exchanged proposed constructions of claim terms and on April 9, 2012 filed the Joint Claim Construction Statement with the District Court. On May 8, 2012, Ericsson submitted its opening Markman brief and on June 1, 2012 the defendants submitted their responsive Markman brief. Ericsson's Reply Markman brief was submitted June 15, 2012, and on June 28, 2012 the Markman hearing was held in the Eastern District of Texas. On June 21, 2012, Ericsson dismissed the '468 Patent (“Multi-purpose base station”) with prejudice and gave the Company a covenant not to sue as to products in the marketplace now or in the past. On June 22, 2012, Intel filed its complaint in Intervention, meaning that Intel became an official defendant in the Ericsson case. The parties thereafter completed fact discovery and exchanged expert reports. During the exchange of the expert reports, Ericsson dropped the '516 Patent (the OFDM “pulse shaping” patent). In addition, Ericsson dropped the '223 Patent (packet discard patent) against all the defendants' products, except for those products that use Intel chips. Thus, Ericsson has now dropped the '468 Patent (wireless base station), the '516 Patent (OFDM pulse shaping), and the '223 Patent (packet discard patent) for all non-Intel products. The five remaining patents were all only asserted against 802.11-compliant products. At a Court ordered mediation in Dallas on January 15, 2013, the parties did not come to an agreement to settle the litigation. On March 8, 2013, the parties received the Markman Order in response to the claim construction briefing and claim construction hearing. A jury trial in the Ericsson case occurred in the Eastern District of Texas from June 3 through June 13, 2013. After hearing the evidence, the jury found no infringement of the '435 and '223 Patents, and the jury found infringement of claim 1 of the '625 Patent, claims 1 and 5 of the '568 Patent, and claims 1 and 2 of the '215 Patent. The jury also found that there was no willful infringement by any defendant. Additionally, the jury found no invalidity of the asserted claims of the '435 and '625 Patents. The jury assessed the following damages against the defendants: D-Link: $435,000 ; NETGEAR: $3,555,000 ; Acer/Gateway: $1,170,000 ; Dell: $1,920,000 ; Toshiba: $2,445,000 ; Belkin: $600,000 . The damages awards equate to 15 cents per unit for each accused 802.11 device sold by each defendant. Thus, unless the defendants' various appeals are successful, the Company will likely have a 15 cent per unit obligation on its 802.11 devices until 2016 (when one infringed patent in suit expires), 10 cent per unit obligation from 2016 through 2018 (when a second infringed patent in suit expires), and a 5 cent per unit obligation from 2018 through 2020 (when the third and last infringed patent in suit expires). The Company and other defendants submitted various post-trial motions and briefs to the Court for its consideration, including motions and briefs for judgment as a matter of law in favor of defendants on non-infringement and invalidity of the patents in suit and for a reduction in damages, and the defendants have also moved for a new trial. These motions were argued before the Court on July 16, 2013. On August 6, 2013, the Court issued its orders on the various JMOL's (“Judgment as a Matter of Law”) and other post-trial motions. The Court denied all the defendants’ motions and set the reasonable and nondiscriminatory (RAND) royalty rate for the infringed patents equivalent to the jury verdict of 15 cents per unit. After negotiations, Ericsson and the Company agreed to the following as collateral while the appeal of the verdict, Court’s rulings, and the RAND royalty rate are pending. Ericsson will forego collecting the $3,555,000 verdict plus various fees (Prejudgment interest of $224,141 ; Post-judgment interest of $336 per day; Costs of $41,667 ) assigned to the Company pending appeal, so long as a Company representative declares and provides Ericsson with adequate quarterly assurances that the judgment can still be paid. For the ongoing royalties of 15 cents per 802.11n or 802.11ac device sold by the company that the jury and Court awarded, the Company will place the ongoing royalty amount into the Court’s registry (escrow account) and will give Ericsson a corresponding royalty report until the Company’s appeals of the jury verdict, the Court’s orders, and the RAND royalty rate are exhausted. On December 16, 2013, the defendants submitted their appeal brief to the Federal Circuit. Ericsson filed its response brief on February 20, 2014, and the defendants filed their reply brief before on March 24, 2014. The oral arguments before the Federal Circuit took place on June 5, 2014. On December 4, 2014, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion and order in the Company’s Ericsson appeal. The Federal Circuit vacated the entirety of the $3.6 million jury verdict against the Company and the ongoing 15 cent per unit royalty verdict, and also vacated the entirety of the verdict against the other defendants and their ongoing royalties, finding that the District Court hadn’t properly instructed the jury on royalty rates and Ericsson’s licensing promises. The Federal Circuit held that the lower court had failed to adequately instruct the jury about Ericsson’s actual commitments to license the infringed patents on reasonable and nondiscriminatory (“RAND”) terms. Further, the Federal Circuit stated that the lower court had neglected to inform the jury that a royalty for a patented technology must be removed from the value of the entire standard, and that a RAND royalty rate should be based on the invention’s value, rather than any added value from standardization. The jury’s damages awards were therefore completely vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. As of the end of the fourth quarter of 2014, based on the Federal Circuit’s opinion and order, the Company made adjustments to decrease the accrual related to this case. While the Federal Circuit found the district court had inadequate jury instructions, it held that there was enough evidence for the jury to find infringement of two claims of U.S. Patent Number 6,466,568 and two claims of U.S. Patent Number 6,772,215, but reversed the lower court’s decision not to grant a noninfringement judgment as a matter of law regarding the third patent, U.S. Patent Number 6,424,625, finding that no reasonable jury could find that the '625 Patent was infringed by the defendants. Neither Ericsson nor the defendants appealed the Federal Circuit’s decision, and the Federal Circuit issued its mandate and sent the case back to the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas for a new damages trial. No proceedings have yet taken place in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas following the Federal Circuit’s mandate. In September of 2013, Broadcom filed petitions in the USPTO at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) seeking inter partes review (“IPR”) of Ericsson’s three patents that the jury found were infringed by the Company and other defendants. On March 6, 2015, the PTAB invalidated all the claims of these three patents that were asserted against the Company and other defendants at trial -- claim 1 of the '625 Patent, claims 1 and 5 of the '568 Patent, and claims 1 and 2 of the '215 Patent -- ruling these claims were anticipated or obvious in light of prior art. The PTAB also rejected two motions to amend by Ericsson, which sought to substitute certain proposed claims in the '625 and '568 patents, should they be found unpatentable by the PTAB. This PTAB decision comes on top of the Federal Circuit decision (a) vacating the jury verdict after finding that the district court had not properly instructed the jury on royalty rates and Ericsson’s licensing promises, and (b) ruling that no reasonable jury could have found the ‘625 Patent infringed. Ericsson appealed the PTAB decision to the Federal Circuit and also requested that the PTAB reconsider its decision, but the PTAB denied Ericsson’s request for reconsideration. While Ericsson appeals the PTAB decision the present status of the case is that the Company does not infringe on any valid Ericsson patent, and accordingly the Company reversed the accruals related to this case in the first fiscal quarter of 2015. Agenzia Entrate Provincial Revenue Office 1 of Milan v. NETGEAR International, Inc. In November 2012, the Italian Tax Police began a comprehensive tax audit of NETGEAR International, Inc.’s Italian Branch. The scope of the audit initially was from 2004 through 2011 and was subsequently expanded to include 2012. The tax audit encompasses Corporate Income Tax (IRES), Regional Business Tax (IRAP) and Value-Added Tax (VAT). In December 2013, December 2014, and August 2015, an assessment was issued by Inland Revenue Agency, Provincial Head Office No. 1 of Milan-Auditing Department (Milan Tax Office) for the 2004 tax year, the 2005 through 2007 tax years, and the 2008 through 2010 tax years, respectively. All other years remain under audit. In May 2014, the Company filed with the Provincial Tax Court of Milan (Tax Court) a Request for Hearing in Open Court and Request for Suspension of the Tax Assessment for the 2004 year. The hearing was held and decision was issued on November 7, 2014. The Tax Court found in favor of the Company and nullified the assessment by the Inland Revenue Agency for 2004. The Inland Revenue Agency appealed the decision of the Tax Court on June 12, 2015. The Company filed its counter appeal with respect to the 2004 year during September 2015. With respect to 2005 through 2007, the Company filed its briefs with the Tax Court in mid-February. In June, 2015, the Company filed with the Provincial Tax Court of Milan (Tax Court) a Request for Hearing in Open Court and Request for Suspension of the Tax Assessment for the 2005 through 2007 tax years. The hearing was held and the Request for Suspension of payment was granted. With respect to 2008 through 2010, the Company filed its briefs with the Tax Court in October 2015. It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the Company resulting from this litigation matter. Via Vadis v. NETGEAR, Inc. On August 22, 2014, the Company was sued by Via Vadis, LLC and AC Technologies, S.A. (“Via Vadis”), in the Western District of Texas. The complaint alleges that the Company’s ReadyNAS and Stora products “with built-in BitTorrent software" allegedly infringe three related patents of Via Vadis (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,904,680, RE40,521, and 8,656,125). Via Vadis filed similar complaints against Belkin, Buffalo, Blizzard, D-Link, and Amazon. By referring to “built-in BitTorrent software,” the Company believes that the complaint is referring to the BitTorrent Sync application, which was released by BitTorrent Inc. in spring of 2014. At a high-level, the application allows file synchronization across multiple devices by storing the underlying files on multiple local devices, rather than on a centralized server. The Company’s ReadyNAS products do not include BitTorrent software when sold. The BitTorrent application is provided as one of a multitude of potential download options, but the software itself is not included on the Company’s devices when shipped. Therefore, the only viable allegation at this point is an indirect infringement allegation. On November 10, 2014, the Company answered the complaint denying that it infringes the patents in suit and also asserting the affirmative defenses that the patents in suit are invalid and barred by the equitable doctrines of laches, waiver, and/or estoppel. On February 5, 2015, the Court set the claim construction hearing for December 4, 2015 and allowed discovery for claim construction purposes to commence. On February 6, 2015, the Company filed its motion to transfer venue from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California with the Court; on February 13, 2015, Via Vadis filed its opposition to the Company’s motion to transfer; and on February 20, 2015, the Company filed its reply brief on its motion to transfer. In early April 2015, the Company received the plaintiff’s infringement contentions, and on June 12, 2015, the defendants served invalidity contentions. Discovery in the case was stayed until the Court issues its claim construction order. On July 30, 2015 the Court granted the Company’s motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California. In addition, the Company recently learned that Amazon and Blizzard filed petitions for the inter partes reviews (“IPRs”) for the patents in suit. On October 15, 2015, the Company and Via Vadis came to an agreement in principle to petition the California Court to stay the case pending resolution of the IPR proceedings filed by Amazon and Blizzard. No Scheduling Order has been issued by the California Court. It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the Company resulting from this litigation matter. Wetro Lan v. NETGEAR, Inc. On January 30, 2015, the Company was sued by a non-practicing entity called Wetro Lan LLC (“Wetro Lan”) in United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. Wetro Lan alleges direct infringement by the Company of United States Patent No. 6,795,918 (the “'918 Patent”) entitled “Service Level Computer Security” based on the Company’s manufacture and selling of the “NETGEAR WGR614v9 Wireless Router and similarly situated NETGEAR, Inc. Wireless Routers.” On April 13, 2015 the Company answered the complaint. The Company denied that it infringed the patent and asserted several affirmative defenses (counterclaims), including noninfringement, invalidity, limitation of damages, laches, waiver, estoppel, and other equitable defenses, and on May 4, 2015 Wetro Lan answered the Company’s counterclaims. On July 16, 2015, the Company filed with the Court a motion to transfer venue from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California. On August 17, 2015, Wetro Lan filed with the Court its opposition to the Company’s motion to transfer venue, and on August 24, 2015 the Company filed its Reply in Support of Transfer as filed. The Court has not yet ruled on the Company’s transfer motion. It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the Company resulting from this litigation matter. Frequency Systems LLC v NETGEAR, Inc. On May 8, 2015, the Company was sued by a non-practicing entity named Frequency Systems LLC (“Frequency Systems”) in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas. Frequency Systems alleges direct or indirect infringement by the Company of a single patent, U.S. Pat. No. 8,417,205 (the “'205 Patent”), entitled “Antenna selection scheme for multiple antennae.” Frequency Systems alleges infringement generically by the Company’s “wireless routers and access points product families” without specifying any models. Frequency Systems also simultaneously sued ADTRAN, TCL Communications, Amped Wireless, ASUS, Belkin, Buffalo, Cisco, D-Link, EnGenius Technologies, Extreme Networks, HP, HTC, Huawei, ATEN Technology, IOGear, Kyocera, LG, Linksys, Motorola Mobility, Novatel Wireless, Sharp, TP-Link, TRENDnet, Western Digital, ZTE, and ZyXEL. The Company answered the complaint on July 23, 2015 asserting various defenses, including noninfrigement and invalidity of the patent in suit. Recently, it appears that Frequency Systems granted RPX Corporation a license. This is significant because the Company’s products that use WiFi chipsets of licensed companies (i.e. companies that are RPX members) likely will be licensed. The licensed RPX members include Broadcom and QualComm-Atheros. On September 24, 2015, Frequency Systems served preliminary infringement contentions. Frequency Systems alleges that the Company infringes claims 1, 2 and 4 of the '205 Patent by the sale of products that are compliant with the 802.11n wireless standard, and identifies the following Company models as exemplars: R8000, R7500, R7000, R6400, R6300, R6250, AC1450, R6220, R6200, R6100, R6050, WNDR4700, WNDR4720, WNDR4500, WNDR4300, WNDR3700, WNDR3400, WNR2500, JNR3210, WNR2020, R7900, R6700, D7800, D7000, D6400, D6200, DGND4000, DGND3700, C7000, C6300, C3700, MBR1515, MBR1515A, MVBR1517, MVBR1210C, WNDAP660, EX7000, EX6200, EX6150, EX6100, X3920, EX3700, WN2500RP, WN3000RP, EX2700, A6210, LG2200D, LG6100D, WNDAP620, WND930, WNDAP360, WNDAP350, WN203, WN802T, and D2200D. The Court held its initial scheduling conference on September 30, 2015. The Company’s invalidity contentions are due on November 25, 2015. It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the Company resulting from this litigation matter. Verifire Network Solutions v NETGEAR, Inc. On June 3, 2015, the Company was sued by a non-practicing entity named Verifire Network Solutions, LLC. (“Verifire”) in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas. Verifire alleges direct infringement by the Company of a single patent, US Patent No. 8,463,727 (the “'727 Patent”), entitled “Communication management system and communication management method,” and the complaint targets Netgear’s ProSAFE® business-class VPN Firewall and ProSECURE® UTM Firewall product families. Verifire recently has sued several other companies in the same Court on the same patent, including Fortinet, WatchGuard, Check Point, and Hewlett Packard. The Company received an extension to answer the complaint and filed its Answer to the on August 26, 2015. On September 22, 2015, Verifire produced its preliminary infringement contentions. Verifire asserted that claims 1 and 3 of the '727 Patent cover all network security equipment, including firewalls such as the ProSAFE and ProSECURE lines manufactured by the Company. Recently, many defendants settled, as RPX Corporation appears to have signed a settlement agreement with Verifire to settle out RPX members. The remaining defendants are: ADTRAN, Panda Distribution, Inc., and the Company. The Court held its initial scheduling conference on September 30, 2015. The Company’s invalidity contentions are due on November 25, 2015. It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the Company resulting from this litigation matter. Chrimar Systems, Inc. v NETGEAR, Inc. On July 1, 2015, the Company was sued by a non-practicing entity named Chrimar Systems, Inc., doing business as CMS Technologies and Chrimar Holding Company, LLC (collectively, “CMS”), in the Eastern District of Texas for allegedly infringing four patents-U.S. Patent Nos. 8,155,012 (the “'012 Patent”), entitled “System and method for adapting a piece of terminal equipment”; 8,942,107 (the “'107 Patent”), entitled “Piece of ethernet terminal equipment”; 8,902,760 (the “'760 Patent”), entitled “Network system and optional tethers”; and 9,019,838 (the “'838 Patent”), entitled “Central piece of network equipment” (collectively “patents-in-suit”). The patents-in-suit relate to using or embedding an electrical DC current or signal into an existing Ethernet communication link in order to transmit additional data about the devices on the communication link, and the specifications for the patents are identical. It appears that Chrimar has approximately 40 active cases in the Eastern District of Texas, as well as some cases in the Northern District of California on the patents-in-suit and the parent patent to the patents-in-suit. The Company received an extension until September 15, 2015 to answer the complaint. The Company answered the complaint with a Motion to Dismiss Chrimar’s indirect infringement claims. Chrimar subsequently filed a response to the Company’s motion to dismiss and Chrimar’s First Amended Complaint. Chrimar responded to the Motion to Dismiss by dropping its induced infringement claims and providing supplemental allegations in support of its contributory infringement claims with respect to the '760 Patent. For the '012, '107 and '838 Patents, Chrimar now only alleges direct infringement. Chrimar originally asserted direct and indirect infringement for all four patents-in-suit. Subsequently, on October 5, 2015, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Direct Infringement Claims Relating to the '760 Patent. Chrimar filed its response to this motion to dismiss on October 15, 2015, and the Company filed its Reply on October 26, 2015. It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the Company resulting from this litigation matter. IP Indemnification Claims In its sales agreements, the Company typically agrees to indemnify its direct customers, distributors and resellers (the “Indemnified Parties”) for any expenses or liability resulting from claimed infringements by the Company's products of patents, trademarks or copyrights of third parties that are asserted against the Indemnified Parties, subject to customary carve outs. The terms of these indemnification agreements are generally perpetual after execution of the agreement. The maximum amount of potential future indemnification is generally unlimited. From time to time, the Company receives requests for indemnity and may choose to assume the defense of such litigation asserted against the Indemnified Parties. Environmental Regulation The Company is required to comply and is currently in compliance with the European Union ("EU") and other Directives on the Restrictions of the use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment (“RoHS”), Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment ("WEEE") requirements, Energy Using Product (“EuP”) requirements, the REACH Regulation, Packaging Directive and the Battery Directive. The Company is subject to various federal, state, local, and foreign environmental laws and regulations, including those governing the use, discharge, and disposal of hazardous substances in the ordinary course of our manufacturing process. The Company believes that its current manufacturing and other operations comply in all material respects with applicable environmental laws and regulations; however, it is possible that future environmental legislation may be enacted or current environmental legislation may be interpreted to create an environmental liability with respect to its facilities, operations, or products. See further discussion of the business risks associated with environmental legislation under the risk titled, "We are subject to, and must remain in compliance with, numerous laws and governmental regulations concerning the manufacturing, use, distribution and sale of our products, as well as any such future laws and regulations. Some of our customers also require that we comply with their own unique requirements relating to these matters. Any failure to comply with such laws, regulations and requirements, and any associated unanticipated costs, may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations." within Item 1A Risk Factors of this Form 10-Q. |
