Commitments and Contingencies | 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 2028 . 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. In June 2018, Arlo Technologies Inc., a majority-owned subsidiary of the Company, entered into an office lease agreement expiring December 2028 for its corporate headquarters located in San Jose, California. During the third fiscal quarter of 2018, the Company commenced construction of tenant improvement which is expected to be complete by January 2019. Annual base rent is expected to be $2.9 million and will increase throughout the lease term. Lease payments are expected to commence once the building is complete. Under the authoritative guidance for leases, the Company is deemed the owner, for accounting purposes, during the construction phase of the building (mainly for construction of tenant improvements) under build-to-suit lease arrangements because of the Company’s involvement with the construction, the exposure to any potential cost overruns or other commitments including indemnification under the arrangements. Consequently, the fair value of the building, of $21.9 million , was included in property and equipment, net, and recorded based on fair value of the building and actual construction costs incurred through September 30, 2018 . A corresponding liability of $20.6 million was included in Non-current liabilities and $0.9 million was included in Current liabilities on the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets as of September 30, 2018 . 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. As of September 30, 2018 , the Company had approximately $169.1 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, were as follows: Three Months Ended Nine Months Ended September 30, October 1, September 30, October 1, (In thousands) Balance as of beginning of the period $ 18,759 $ 60,451 $ 75,824 $ 58,520 Reclassified to sales returns upon adoption of ASC 606 — — (57,860 ) * — Provision for warranty obligation made during the period 857 35,815 3,798 97,083 Settlements made during the period (1,090 ) (28,716 ) (3,236 ) (88,053 ) Balance at end of period $ 18,526 $ 67,550 $ 18,526 $ 67,550 ________________________ * Upon adoption of ASC 606 on January 1, 2018, certain warranty reserve balances totaling $57.9 million were reclassified to sales returns as these liabilities are payable to the Company's customers and settled in cash or by credit on account. Under ASC 606, these amounts are to be accounted for as sales with right of return. 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 had no liabilities recorded for these agreements as of September 30, 2018 . 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. The Company believes the estimated fair value of these agreements is minimal. Accordingly, the Company had no liabilities recorded for these agreements as of September 30, 2018 . Employment Agreements The Company has signed various change in control and severance agreements with key executives. Upon a termination without cause or resignation with good reason, executive officers would be entitled to (1) cash severance equal to the executive officer’s annual base salary, and, for the Chief Executive Officer, an additional amount equal to his target annual bonus, (2) 12 months of health benefits continuation and (3) accelerated vesting of any unvested equity awards that would have vested during the 12 months following the termination date. Upon a termination without cause or resignation with good reason that occurs during the one month prior to or 12 months following a change in control of the Company, executive officers would be entitled to (1) cash severance equal to a multiple ( 2 x for the Chief Executive Officer and 1 x for all other executive officers) of the sum of the executive officer’s annual base salary and target annual bonus, (2) a number of months ( 24 for the Chief Executive Officer and 12 for other executive officers) of health benefits continuation and (3) accelerated vesting of all outstanding, unvested equity awards. The Company had no liabilities recorded for these agreements as of September 30, 2018 . 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 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. On June 22, 2012, Intel filed its Complaint in Intervention, meaning that Intel also became a defendant. During litigation, Ericsson (a) dismissed the '468 Patent with prejudice and gave the Company a covenant not to sue as to products in the marketplace now or in the past, (b) dropped the '516 Patent and (c) dropped the '223 Patent, except for those products that use Intel chips. A jury trial 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 cents per patent). The Company and other defendants appealed the jury verdict. On December 4, 2014, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion and order in the appeal. The Federal Circuit vacated the entirety of the $3.6 million jury verdict against the Company and other defendants’ damages awards and also vacated the ongoing 15 cent s per unit royalty verdict, finding that the District Court had not properly instructed the jury on royalty rates and Ericsson’s licensing promises. 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. The case was remanded for further proceedings. In September 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, ruling these claims were anticipated or obvious in light of prior art. 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. Accordingly, the Company has reversed the accruals related to this case. Ericsson appealed the PTAB’s Broadcom IPR decision to the Federal Circuit and also requested that the PTAB reconsider its decision. The PTAB denied Ericsson’s request for reconsideration. On appeal to the Federal Circuit, Ericsson argued that the PTAB’s determination that Broadcom had timely filed its IPR petitions was improper, as it was in privity with the defendants, and that the PTAB should not have invalidated the claims of the '625 Patent, the '568 Patent, and '215 Patent. The Federal Circuit upheld the invalidity of the patents’ claims, as previously determined by the PTAB, and ruled that Ericsson could not appeal the timeliness of Broadcom’s IPR petitions. Ericsson petitioned the Federal Circuit for an en banc rehearing of the Federal Circuit's panel decision that Broadcom was timely in bringing its IPRs, and the Federal Circuit agreed to the en banc rehearing. On January 8, 2018, the Federal Circuit sitting en banc ruled that the timeliness of Broadcom’s IPR petitions was an appealable issue. Following this en banc decision finding that PTAB decisions on privity are appealable, on April 20, 2018, the original three judge panel upheld its prior finding of invalidity and found that Broadcom was not in privity with the defendants in the district court case, and had timely filed its IPR petitions. In response, Ericsson filed another motion for an en banc hearing of this decision. On August 14, 2018, the Federal Circuit denied Ericsson’s motions for rehearing and rehearing en banc. The only appeal left for Ericsson is to the US Supreme Court. The present status of the case continues to be that the Company does not infringe 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 encompassed 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 filed a counter appeal on July 23, 2016 and is awaiting scheduling of the hearing. 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 2006 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 and the hearing was held on March 22, 2017. A decision favorable to the Company was issued by the Court on July 5, 2017. The Italian Tax Authority has appealed the decision to the Supreme Court and the Company has responded with a counter appeal brief on December 3, 2017 and awaits scheduling of the hearing. 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 filed its appeal to the Regional Tax Court and the Company has submitted its counter brief. The hearing was held on November 17, 2017 and the Company received a positive decision on December 11, 2017. On June 11, 2018, the Italian government filed its appeal brief with the Supreme Court, and the Company filed its counter brief on July 12, 2018 and awaits scheduling of the hearing. With respect to 2008 through 2010, the Company filed its appeal briefs with the Provincial Tax Court in October 2015 and the hearing for the validity of the tax assessments was held on April 21, 2016. A decision favorable to the Company was issued on May 12, 2016. The Inland Revenue Agency has filed its appeal to the Regional Tax Court. The Company filed its counter brief on February 5, 2017. The hearing was held on May 21, 2018, and the Company received a favorable decision on June 12, 2018. The decision has not been served to the Tax Office, which is entitled to appeal on or before January 12, 2019. With respect to 2011 through 2012, the Company has filed its appeal brief on February 26, 2016 with the Provincial Tax Court to contest the relevant tax assessments. The hearing for suspension was held and the Request for Suspension of payment was granted. On October 13, 2016, the Company filed its final brief with the Provincial Tax Court. The hearing was held on October 24, 2016 and a decision favorable to the Company was issued by the Court. The Inland Revenue Agency appealed the decision before the Regional Tax Court on April 19, 2017. The Company filed its counter brief on June 16, 2017 and awaits the scheduling of the hearing. 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. In early March of 2017, The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued various decisions regarding Amazon’s and Blizzard’s IPRs of the patents in suit. One of the IPRs of the '125 patent resulted in a finding by the PTAB that Amazon and Blizzard had had failed to show invalidity. The second IPR on the '125 patent, however, resulted in cancellation of all claims asserted in Via Vadis’s suit against the Company. Reissue '521 did not have any claims found invalid by the PTAB, and some dependent claims of the '680 patent survived the IPRs, and some claims of the '680 patent were canceled. The Northern District of California case against the Company remains stayed. 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. Juniper’s four IPR petitions were instituted by the PTAB in January 2017, and the Company subsequently moved to join the IPR petitions as an “understudy” to Juniper, only assuming a more active role in the petitions in the event Juniper settles with CMS. For all four patents in suit against the Company, the PTAB ordered that (a) the Petitioners’ (the Company, Ruckus, and Brocade) Motion for Joinder to the Juniper IPRs is granted; (b) the Petitioners IPRs are instituted on the same grounds as in the Juniper ‘IPRs and Petitioners are joined with the Juniper IPRs; and (c) all further filings by Petitioners in the joined proceedings will be in the Juniper IPRs. On December 21, 2017, the PTAB issued the first of the four Final Written Decisions in the IPRs filed by the Company on the patents in suit, ruling that the claims of the ‘107 Patent asserted by Chrimar were invalid. This was quickly followed by two more Final Written Decisions -- on January 3, 2018, the ’838 patent’s asserted claims were ruled invalid, and on January 23, 2018 the ‘012 patent’s asserted claims were ruled invalid. Chrimar has 30 days from each Final Written Decision to seek a rehearing at the PTAB and 63 days from each to file an appeal. On April 26, 2018, the PTAB issued its decision invalidating all of the claims of the ‘760 patent challenged in the IPR. The PTAB’s reasoning was similar to the reasoning set forth in the PTAB’s previous decisions on the 012, 107 and 838 patents. The ‘760 patent claims were, however, amended by Chrimar during the pendency of the ‘760 IPR, and the PTAB did not rule on the validity of the amended claims, as they were not challenged in the original IPR Petitions (they couldn’t have been because the Chrimar amendments had not yet happened). On June 6, 2018, Chrimar’s appeals on all 4 written decisions by the USPTO invalidating all challenged claims were consolidated. The parties plan to submit briefs on the matter in the coming months. It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the Company resulting from this litigation matter. Vivato v. NETGEAR, Inc. On April 19, 2017, the Company was sued by XR Communications (d/b/a) Vivato (“Vivato”) in the United States District Court, Central District of California. Based on its complaint, Vivato purports to be a research and development and product company in the Wi-Fi area, but it appears that Vivato is not currently a manufacturer of commercial products. The three (3) patents that Vivato asserts against the Company are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,062,296, 7,729,728, and 6,611,231. The ’296 and ’728 patents are entitled “Forced Beam Switching in Wireless Communication Systems Having Smart Antennas.” The ’231 patent is entitled “Wireless Packet Switched Communication Systems and Networks Using Adaptively Steered Antenna Arrays.” Vivato also has recently asserted the same patents in the Central District of California against D-Link, Ruckus, and Aruba, among others. According to the complaint, the accused products include WiFi access points and routers supporting MU-MIMO, including without limitation access points and routers utilizing the IEEE 802.11ac-2013 standard. The accused technology is standards-based, and more specifically, based on the transmit beamforming technology in the 802.11ac Wi-Fi standard. The Company answered an amended complaint on July 7, 2017. In its answer, the Company objected to venue and recited that objection as a specific affirmative defense, so as to expressly reserve the same. The Company also raised several other affirmative defenses in its answer. On August 28, 2017, the Company submitted its initial disclosures to the plaintiff. The initial scheduling conference was on October 2, 2017, and the Court set five day jury trial for March 19, 2019 for the leading Vivato/D-Link case, meaning the Company’s trial date will be at some point after March 19, 2019. Discovery in this case is ongoing. On March 20, 2018, the Company and other defendants in the various Vivato cases moved the Court to stay the case pending various IPRs filed on all of the patents in suit. Every asserted claim of all three patents-in-suit is now subject to challenge in IPRs that are pending before the U.S. Patent and Trial Appeal Board (“PTAB”). In particular, the Company, Belkin, and Ruckus are filing one set of IPRs on the three patents in suit; Cisco is filing another set of independent IPRs on the three patents in suit; and Aruba is filing yet another set of independent IPRs on the three patents in suit. On April 11, 2018, the Court granted the motion to stay pending filing of the IPRs. On May 3, 2018, the Company and other defendants filed their IPRs. The case is stayed. It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the Company resulting from this litigation matter. Hera Wireless v. NETGEAR, Inc. On July 14, 2017, the Company was sued by Sisvel (via Hera Wireless) in the District of Delaware on three related patents allegedly covering the 802.11n standard. Similar complaints were filed against Amazon, ARRIS, Belkin, Buffalo, and Roku. On December 12, 2017, the Company answered the complaint, denying why each claim limitation of the patents in suit were allegedly met and asserting various affirmative defenses, including invalidity and noninfringement. A proposed joint Scheduling Order was submitted to the Court on January 24, 2018 with trial proposed for March of 2020. On February 27, 2018, Hera Wireless identified the accused products and the asserted claims, alleging that any 802.11n compliant product infringes, and identified only the Company’s Orbi and WND930 products with particularity. Hera Wireless’ infringement contentions were submitted on April 28, 2018. Discovery is ongoing. On June 28, 2018, the Company and other defendants submitted invalidity contentions. The Company along with other defendants jointly filed IPRs challenging 3 of the patents in suit on July 18, 2018. On September 14, 2018, the Company and other defendants jointly filed a second set of IPRs with the USPTO challenging the remaining 6 patents asserted in the Amended Complaint. It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the Company resulting from this litigation matter. MyMail v. NETGEAR, Inc. On August 25, 2017, the non-practicing entity MyMail Ltd. (“MyMail”) sued the Company for patent infringement in the District of Delaware. This is MyMail’s third round of cases, starting in November 2016, and, in this round, MyMail also filed against Ricoh, Panasonic, Acer, and TCL Communications. MyMail is accusing essentially all the Company’s routers and range extenders of infringing claim 5 of U.S. Patent 8,732,318 (the ‘318 patent), entitled “Method of Connecting a User to a Network.” Claim 5 of the ’318 Patent describes a method for modifying network access information and then accessing the network using the modified information. MyMail is specifically accusing the Wi-Fi Protected Setup (WPS) function of the accused routers and range extenders. On December 7, 2017, the Company answered the complaint. In addition to denying that each claim limitation of patents in suit is met, the Company also asserted various affirmative defenses, including invalidity and noninfringement. The parties submitted their jointly proposed scheduling order to the Court on January 11, 2018, which the Court generally adopted in its Scheduling Order of January 17, 2018. |