Litigation and Contingencies | Litigation and Contingencies Legal Matters On November 23, 2016, Oyster Optics, LLC (“Oyster Optics”) filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint asserts infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,469,816, 6,476,952, 6,594,055, 7,099,592, 7,620,327 (the “’327 patent”), 8,374,511 (the “‘511 patent”) and 8,913,898 (the “’898 patent”) (collectively, the “Oyster Optics patents in suit”). The complaint seeks unspecified damages and a permanent injunction. The Company filed its answer to Oyster Optics' complaint on February 3, 2017. The Company filed two petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of the '898 patent with the U.S Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). Other defendants have filed IPR petitions in connection with the remaining Oyster Optics patents in suit. The USPTO instituted two IPRs of the ‘511 patent and two IPRs of the ‘898 patent but denied IPR petitions in connection with the ‘327 patent. A Markman decision was issued on December 5, 2017 and fact discovery closed on December 22, 2017. Oyster Optics dropped the ‘511 and ‘898 patents, leaving only a few claims in the ‘327 patent at issue in the case. On May 15, 2018, Oyster Optics filed a new patent infringement complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, naming the Company as a defendant. In its new complaint, Oyster Optics alleges infringement of the ‘327 patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,749,040 and the ‘898 patent. On June 8, 2018, the court granted the parties’ joint motion to sever and consolidate the first-filed lawsuit with the later filed case. The Company filed its answer to the new complaint on July 16, 2018. A case management conference was held on September 11, 2018, and the court set a trial date for November 4, 2019. On October 26, 2018, the Company filed an amended answer to include a license defense. On November 29, 2018, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment based on the license defense. The court issued a second Markman decision on May 3, 2019, in which the parties were ordered to schedule a mediation within 30 days of the decision. The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of this litigation and therefore cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, arising from this matter. On March 24, 2017, Core Optical Technologies, LLC (“Core Optical”) filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint asserts infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,782,211 (the “Core Optical patent in suit”). The complaint seeks unspecified damages and a permanent injunction. The Company believes that it does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the Core Optical patent in suit, and intends to defend this action vigorously. The Company filed its answer to Core Optical's complaint on September 25, 2017. A Markman hearing was held on May 9, 2018 and the court has set a trial for March 2019. On June 14, 2018, the Company filed a petition for IPR of the Core Optical patent in suit in the USPTO. Core Optical contacted the Company on July 19, 2018 to propose that the case be stayed pending the IPR. The Company agreed to Core Optical’s proposal, and the parties filed a joint motion to stay, which the court granted on July 31, 2018. On October 17, 2018, Core Optical filed a response to the Company's IPR petition. On January 14, 2019, the USPTO denied the Company's IPR petition, and on February 13, 2019, the Company filed a request for rehearing in the USPTO requesting reconsideration of the dismissal of the Company's IPR petition. The parties participated in a mediation on March 15, 2019 and have agreed to a further mediation scheduled for late May 2019. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this litigation at this time and therefore cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, arising from this matter. On June 8, 2017, a Civil Investigative Demand was issued to Coriant pursuant to a False Claims Act investigation by the U.S. government as to whether there has been any violation of 31 U.S.C. §3729. Coriant provided documents and other responses to the U.S. government, and the Company will continue to cooperate in the ongoing investigation. In addition to the matters described above, the Company is subject to various legal proceedings, claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. While the outcome of these matters is currently not determinable, the Company does not expect that the ultimate costs to resolve these matters will have a material effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Loss Contingencies The Company is subject to the possibility of various losses arising in the ordinary course of business. These may relate to disputes, litigation and other legal actions. In the preparation of its quarterly and annual financial statements, the Company considers the likelihood of loss or the incurrence of a liability, including whether it is probable, reasonably possible or remote that a liability has been incurred, as well as the Company’s ability to reasonably estimate the amount of loss, in determining loss contingencies. In accordance with U.S. GAAP, an estimated loss contingency is accrued when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company regularly evaluates current information to determine whether any accruals should be adjusted and whether new accruals are required. As of March 30, 2019 and December 29, 2018, the Company has accrued the estimated liabilities associated with certain loss contingencies. Indemnification Obligations From time to time, the Company enters into certain types of contracts that contingently require it to indemnify parties against third party claims. The terms of such indemnification obligations vary. These contracts may relate to: (i) certain real estate leases under which the Company may be required to indemnify property owners for environmental and other liabilities, and other claims arising from the Company’s use of the applicable premises; and (ii) certain agreements with the Company’s officers, directors and certain key employees, under which the Company may be required to indemnify such persons for liabilities. In addition, the Company has agreed to indemnify certain customers for claims made against the Company’s products, where such claims allege infringement of third party intellectual property rights, including, but not limited to, patents, registered trademarks, and/or copyrights. Under the aforementioned intellectual property indemnification clauses, the Company may be obligated to defend the customer and pay for the damages awarded against the customer under an infringement claim as well as the customer’s attorneys’ fees and costs. These indemnification obligations generally do not expire after termination or expiration of the agreement containing the indemnification obligation. In certain cases, there are limits on and exceptions to the Company’s potential liability for indemnification. The Company cannot estimate the amount of potential future payments, if any, that it might be required to make as a result of these agreements. The maximum potential amount of any future payments that the Company could be required to make under these indemnification obligations could be significant. As permitted under Delaware law and the Company’s charter and bylaws, the Company has agreements whereby it indemnifies certain of its officers and each of its directors. The term of the indemnification period is for the officer’s or director’s lifetime for certain events or occurrences while the officer or director is, or was, serving at the Company’s request in such capacity. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements could be significant; however, the Company has a director and officer insurance policy that may reduce its exposure and enable it to recover all or a portion of any future amounts paid. As a result of its insurance policy coverage, the Company believes the estimated fair value of these indemnification agreements is minimal. |