| 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 October 2, 2016 , the Company had approximately $161 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 October 2, September 27, October 2, September 27, Balance as of beginning of the period $ 50,393 $ 40,967 $ 56,706 $ 44,888 Provision for warranty obligation made during the period 27,939 22,625 62,748 53,862 Settlements made during the period (24,506 ) (15,664 ) (65,628 ) (50,822 ) Balance at end of period $ 53,826 $ 47,928 $ 53,826 $ 47,928 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 October 2, 2016 . 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 October 2, 2016 . 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 equity awards 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 October 2, 2016 . 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 alleged 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 June 8, 2011, Ericsson filed an amended complaint that added Dell, Toshiba and Belkin as defendants. At the status conference held on June 9, 2011, the Court set a Markman (claim construction) hearing for June 28, 2012 and trial for June 3, 2013. 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. 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. 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 equated to 15 cents per unit for each accused 802.11 device sold by each defendant (5 cent per patent). On December 16, 2013, the Company and 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. In 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. 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. 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. Accordingly, the Company reversed the accruals related to this case in the first fiscal quarter of 2015. On September 16, 2016, the Federal Circuit upheld the invalidity of certain claims of the '625 Patent, the '568 Patent, and '215 Patent, as previously determined by the PTAB. The Federal Circuit only issued one precedential written opinion, on the 215 Patent; the PTAB invalidity rulings on the '625 and '568 Patents were upheld without a written decision. Ericsson petitioned the Federal Circuit for an en banc rehearing of the appeal decision, and the present status of the case continues to be that the Company does not infringe on any valid Ericsson patent. 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, August 2015, and December 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, the 2008 through 2010 tax years, and the 2011 through 2012 tax years, respectively. In May 2014, the Company filed with the Provincial Tax Court of Milan an appeal brief, including 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 December 19, 2014. The Tax Court decided 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. On February 26, 2016 the Regional Tax Court conducted the appeals hearing for the 2004 year, ruling in favor of the Company. On June 13, 2016, the Inland Revenue Agency appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Company has filed a counter appeal. In June, 2015, the Company filed with the Provincial Tax Court of Milan an appeal brief including a Request for Hearing in Open Court and Request for Suspension of the Tax Assessment for the 2005 through 2007 tax years. The hearing for suspension was held and the Request for Suspension of payment was granted. The hearing for the validity of the tax assessment for 2005 and 2006 was held in December 2015 with the Provincial Tax Court issuing its decision in favor of the Company. The Inland Revenue Agency filed its appeal with the Regional Tax Court. The Company filed its counter brief on September 30, 2016. The hearing for the validity of the tax assessment for 2007 was held on March 10, 2016 with the Provincial Tax Court who issued its decision in favor of the Company on April 7, 2016. The Inland Revenue Agency has until November 7, 2016 to file for an appeal to the Regional Tax Court with regard to the 2007 tax year. With respect to 2008 through 2010, the Company filed its briefs with the Tax Court in October 2015 and the hearing for the validity of the tax assessments was held on April 21, 2016 and a decision favorable to the Company was issued on May 12, 2016. The Inland Revenue Agency has until December 9, 2016 to file an appeal to the Regional Tax Court. With respect to 2011 through 2012, the Company has filed its appeal brief on February 26, 2016 with the Provincial Tax Court to contest this assessment. The hearing for suspension was held and the Request for Suspension of payment was granted. On October 13, 2016, the Company filed its brief with the Provincial Tax Court. The hearing was held on October 24, 2016. The Company is awaiting the decision of the Provincial Tax Court. With regard to all tax years, 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 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. On July 30, 2015 the Court granted the Company’s motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California. In addition, the Company learned that Amazon and Blizzard filed petitions for the inter partes reviews (“IPRs”) for the patents in suit. On October 30, 2015, the Company and Via Vadis filed a joint stipulation requesting that the Court vacate all deadlines and enter a stay of all proceedings in the case pending the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s final non-appealable decision on the IPRs initiated by Amazon and Blizzard. On November 2, 2015 the Court granted the requested stay. On March 8, 2016, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued written decisions instituting the IPRs jointly filed by Amazon and Blizzard. 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 CMS 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 answered the complaint on September 15, 2015. On November 24, 2015, CMS served its infringement contentions on the Company, and CMS is generally attempting to assert that the patents in suit cover the Power over Ethernet standard (802.3af and 802.3at) used by certain of the Company's products. On December 3, 2015, the Company filed with the Court a motion to transfer venue to the District Court for the Northern District of California and their memorandum of law in support thereof. On December 23, 2015, CMS filed its response to the Company’s motion to transfer, and, on January 8, 2016, the Company filed its reply brief in support of its motion to transfer venue. On January 15, 2016, the Court granted the Company’s motion to transfer venue to the District Court for the Northern District of California. The initial case management conference in the Northern District of California occurred on May 13, 2016, and on August 19, 2016, the parties exchanged preliminary claim constructions and extrinsic evidence. On August 26, 2016, the Company and three defendants in other Northern District of California CMS cases (Juniper Networks, Inc., Ruckus Wireless, Inc., and Fortinet, Inc.) submitted motions to stay their cases. The defendants in part argued that stays were appropriate pending the resolution of the currently-pending IPRs of the patents-in-suit before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), including four IPR Petitions filed by Juniper. On September 9, 2016, CMS submitted its opposition to the motions to stay the cases. On September 26, 2016, the Court ordered the cases stayed in their entirety, until the PTAB reaches institution decisions with respect to Juniper’s four pending IPR petitions. The Court ordered that the parties provide the Court with a written update on the status of all IPR and reexamination proceedings within ten days of the PTAB’s institution decisions on Juniper’s four IPR petitions, at which time the Court may either lift or continue the stay of the cases. It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the Company resulting from this litigation matter. Wi3, INC. v. NETGEAR, Inc. On November 12, 2015, a lawsuit was filed against the Company by a company called Wi3, INC. (“Wi3”) in the United States District Court, Western District of New York. The patent No. 6,108,331 (the “'331 Patent”) is entitled “Single Medium Wiring Scheme for Multiple Signal Distribution in Building and Access Port Therefor,” and was filed in 1998, and should expire in July 2018. The complaint alleges direct and indirect infringement, and accuses the Company's MoCA Network Adapters and/or Network Extenders (including at least model MCA1001 v2) of infringing at least claims 26, 27, 29, and 30. The complaint alleges no pre-suit knowledge of the patent, but seeks enhanced damages. The patent has been asserted in three prior cases, and all three cases were resolved in the early stages. The Company filed its answer to the Wi3 complaint on March 11, 2016. In the answer, the Company denied the infringement allegations and put forth several counterclaims. Subsequent to the Company’s answer, the parties participated in some motion practice resulting in an amended answer and counterclaims being filed by the Company on April 1, 2016. Wi3 answered the Company’s amended answer and counterclaims on April 13, 2016. The initial case management conference occurred on August 17, 2016. Without admitting any wrongdoing or violation of law and to avoid the distraction and expense of continued litigation and the uncertainty of a jury verdict on the merits, on August 29, 2016, the Company and Wi3 settled the lawsuit for a one-time payment from the Company to Wi3 in return for a license to the Company to the Wi3 patents and applications that are currently owned by Wi3. As part of the settlement, Wi3 also agreed not to sue the Company’s customers or suppliers on the Wi3 patents and applications that are currently owned by Wi3. The Court subsequently dismissed the case. The settlement did not have a material financial impact to the Company. Tessera v. NETGEAR, Inc. On May 23, 2016, Tessera Technologies, Inc., Tessera, Inc., and Invensas Corp. (collectively, “Tessera”) filed a complaint requesting that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337 by reason of alleged infringement of certain patent claims by the Company and other respondents. On June 20, 2016, the Commission issued the related Notice of Investigation, and the Investigation was instituted on June 24, 2016. The Tessera complaint alleges that the following “Proposed Respondents” unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain semiconductor devices, semiconductor device packages, and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,856,007 (the ‘007 patent), 6,849,946 (the ‘946 patent), and 6,133,136 (the ‘136 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”): Broadcom Limited of Singapore; Broadcom Corp. of Irvine, California; Avago Technologies Limited of Singapore; Avago Technologies U.S. Inc. of San Jose, California; Arista Networks, Inc. of Santa Clara, California; ARRIS International plc of Suwanee, Georgia; ARRIS Group, Inc. of Suwanee, Georgia; ARRIS Technology, Inc. of Horsham, Pennsylvania; ARRIS Enterprises LLC of Suwanee, Georgia; ARRIS Solutions, Inc. of Suwanee, Georgia; Pace Ltd. (formerly Pace plc) of England; Pace Americas, LLC of Boca Raton, Florida; Pace USA, LLC of Boca Raton, Florida; ASUSTeK Computer Inc. of Taiwan; ASUS Computer International of Fremont, California; Comcast Cable Communications, LLC of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Comcast Business Communications, LLC of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; HTC Corp. of Taiwan; HTC America, Inc. of Bellevue, Washington; Technicolor S.A. of France; Technicolor USA, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana; Technicolor Connected Home USA LLC of Indianapolis, Indiana; and the Company. According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to semiconductor packaging technology. In particular, the ‘007 patent relates to a compact and economical semiconductor chip assembly that includes a packaged semiconductor chip, a chip carrier with a metallic thermal conductor, and a circuit panel with a thermal conductor mounting. The ‘946 patent relates to a semiconductor layout configuration and method that results in a more efficient planarization process for a semiconductor chip. Lastly, the ‘136 patent relates to a structure for metal interconnects used in semiconductor packaging. In the complaint, Tessera states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents. In particular, the complaint refers to multiple categories of accused semiconductor products associated with Broadcom and asserts that the remaining Proposed Respondents import and sell products that contain these infringing Broadcom semiconductor products. Tessera requested that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order directed at the Proposed Respondents and related entities. The claim construction hearing for the Investigation is scheduled for December 1, 2016; the evidentiary hearing is scheduled for March 27 - 31, 2017; and the target date for completion of the Investigation is October 24, 2017. Concurrently with the filing of the instant ITC complaint, Tessera also filed a complaint against Broadcom Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of the asserted patents. The Company has not been sued in Delaware or any other jurisdiction other than the ITC. Discovery in the ITC case is ongoing. The Company is considering stipulating to certain facts regarding its importation and inventory of Broadcom-based products in return for various relief from discovery, such as reduced depositions and discovery responses. It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the Company resulting from this litigation matter. Symbology v. NETGEAR, Inc. On June 7, 2016, the Company and numerous other companies were sued in the Eastern District of Texas by a non-practicing entity named Symbology Innovations, LLC (“Symbology”). The lawsuit alleges infringement of three patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,424,752 (the ‘752 Patent); 8,651,369 (the ‘369 Patent); and 8,936,190 (the ‘190 Patent) (collectively “Patents in Suit”). The Patents in Suit are all entitled “System and method for presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device”, and the complaint targets the Company’s use of QR codes. In total, Symbology has filed approximately 50 lawsuits against 50 companies alleging infringement of the Patents in Suit. The alleged infringers Symbology is targeting are advertisers using QR codes. The plaintiff generally is alleging that the Patents in Suit cover the use of QR codes to display content from a website, such as using a mobile phone to scan the QR code, whereby the phone gets the URL from the QR code and fetches the associated web page and then displays it on the mobile phone. The Company was served with the complaint on July 8, 2016. On August 29, 2016, the Company received Symbology’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions and Disclosures. On September 12, 2016 the Company filed its Answer to the Complaint, denying the allegations of infringement and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. On September 30, 2016, the Company received Symbology’s Initial Disclosures. On October 3, 2016, the Company filed a Motion to Transfer the case from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California, and on October 10, 2016, the Company filed its Initial Disclosures and initial technical document production. Without admitting any wrongdoing or violation of law and to avoid the distraction and expense of continued litigation and the uncertainty of a jury verdict on the merits, on October 20, 2016, the Company and Symbology reached a verbal agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit for a one-time payment from the Company to Symbology in return for a license to the Company to the Symbology patents and applications that are currently owned by Symbology. If the verbally-agreed settlement is finalized and case dismissed then this litigation matter will not have a material financial impact to the Company. e.Digital v. NETGEAR, Inc. On September 12, 2016, e.Digital Corporation (e.Digital) filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Northern District of California accusing the Company of infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 8,311,522 (“the ’522 patent”); 8,311,524 (“the ’524 patent”); 9,002,331 (“the ’331 patent”); and 9,178,983 (“the ’983 patent”) (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”), which purportedly cover systems and methods for the remote detection, classification, and communication of sensor data. In the Complaint, e.Digital broadly accuses the Company’s Arlo wireless camera systems, including the Arlo Wire-Free, Arlo Q, and Arlo Q Plus cameras (collectively, the “Accused Products”). The allegations are generally directed at the “remote monitoring and communication” functionality of the Accused Products. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Accused Products infringe the patents-in-suit by utilizing sensors-such as cameras and microphones-to collect data and perform various operations-such as send alerts, trigger video recording, or take a snapshot-in response to a classification of the collected sensor data. Beginning with a lawsuit against Dropcam in July, 2014, e.Digital has litigated the patents-in-suit, and related portfolio, against a handful of other companies with products similar to the Arlo wireless camera systems. The previous litigation includes the lawsuit against Dropcam along with suits against ArcSoft, Inc., ShenZhen Gospell Smarthome Electronic Co., Ltd., iBaby Labs, Inc., iSmart Alarm, Inc., MivaTek International, Inc., MyFox, Inc., and Nest. Concurren |
