Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended |
Mar. 31, 2014 |
Commitments and Contingencies | ' |
13. Commitments and Contingencies |
Leases |
The Company leases its facility and certain equipment under noncancelable lease agreements expiring in various years through 2018. The Company also licenses certain software used in its research and development activities under a term license subscription and maintenance arrangement. |
|
As of March 31, 2014, future minimum lease payments under noncancelable operating leases having initial terms in excess of one year are as follows: |
|
| | | | |
2014 (remaining) | | $ | 4,850 | |
2015 | | | 6,497 | |
2016 | | | 3,327 | |
2017 | | | 1,909 | |
2018 | | | 188 | |
| | | | |
| | $ | 16,771 | |
| | | | |
For the three months ended March 31, 2014 and 2013, lease operating expense was $1,423 and $1,664, respectively. |
Noncancelable Purchase Obligations |
The Company’s noncancelable purchase obligations consisted primarily of license fees the Company committed to pay under several agreements. As of March 31, 2014, the Company’s future total noncancelable purchase obligations was $127 which are all payable in 2014. |
We depend upon third party subcontractors to manufacture our wafers. Our subcontractor relationships typically allow for the cancellation of outstanding purchase orders, but require payment of all expenses incurred through the date of cancellation. As of March 31, 2014, the total value of open purchase orders for wafers was approximately $2,765. |
Legal Proceedings |
Netlist, Inc. v. Inphi Corporation, Case No. 09-cv-6900 (C.D. Cal.) |
On September 22, 2009, Netlist filed suit in the United States District Court, Central District of California, or the Court, asserting that the Company infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,532,537. Netlist filed an amended complaint on December 22, 2009, further asserting that the Company infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 7,619,912 and 7,636,274, collectively with U.S. Patent No. 7,532,537, the patents-in-suit, and seeking both unspecified monetary damages to be determined and an injunction to prevent further infringement. These infringement claims allege that the Company’s iMB™ and certain other memory module components infringe the patents-in-suit. The Company answered the amended complaint on February 11, 2010 and asserted that the Company does not infringe the patents-in-suit and that the patents-in-suit are invalid. In 2010, Company filed inter partes requests for reexamination with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”), asserting that the patents-in-suit are invalid. |
On August 27, 2010, the USPTO ordered the request for Inter Partes Reexamination for U.S. Patent No. 7,636,274 and found a substantial new question of patentability based upon each of the different issues that the Company raised as the reexamination requestor. On September 27, 2011, the Patent Office issued a First Office Action based on the Netlist ‘274 Patent Reexamination Request and rejected 91 of its 97 claims. On October 27, 2011, Netlist responded to the USPTO determination by amending some but not all of the claims, adding new claims and making arguments as to the validity of the rejected claims in view of the cited references. The Company provided rebuttable comments to the USPTO on November 28, 2011. On March 12, 2012, the Examiner issued an Action Closing Prosecution, indicating that the claims pending contain allowable subject matter, and Netlist did not respond to the Action Closing Prosecution in the time provided by the USPTO. On June 22, 2012, the USPTO issued a Right of Appeal Notice, and on July 23, 2012, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal. The Company filed its Appeal Brief on September 24, 2012 and Netlist filed its Responsive Brief on October 24, 2012. The parties received an Examiner’s Answer dated April 16, 2013 from the USPTO that maintained the rejections set forth on the Right of Appeal Notice dated June 22, 2012. The Company filed a Rebuttal Brief on May 16, 2013 and a Request for Oral Hearing on June 7, 2013. The appeal hearing took place on November 20, 2013. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued its decision on January 16, 2014, finding the Examiner erred in declining to adopt 8 of the 9 different rejections that had been proposed by the Company. The Company requested a rehearing of the decision not to adopt the remaining one rejection that had been proposed by Company and was not adopted by the PTAB on February 18, 2014. In papers dated March 18, 2014, Netlist provided rebuttal comments to the request for rehearing and also requested re-opening of prosecution with respect to the claims that the PTAB had rejected, and in that request to re-open prosecution amended the independent claims that stood rejected. The Company filed comments with respect to these proposed amended claims on April 17, 2014. A communication from the USPTO is expected as the next substantive step of the proceeding, as prosecution otherwise remains closed. The proceeding is expected to continue in accordance with established Inter Partes Reexamination procedures. |
|
On September 8, 2010, the USPTO ordered the request for Inter Partes Reexamination for U.S. Patent No. 7,532,537 and found a substantial new question of patentability based upon different issues that the Company raised as the reexamination requestor. The USPTO accompanied this Reexamination Order of U.S. Patent No. 7,532,537 with its own evaluation of the validity of this patent, and rejected some but not all of claims. In a response dated October 8, 2010, Netlist responded to the USPTO determination by amending some but not all of the claims, adding new claims and making arguments as to why the claims were not invalid in view of the cited references. The Company provided rebuttable comments to the USPTO on November 8, 2010 along with a Petition requesting an increase in the number of allowed pages of the rebuttable comments. On January 20, 2011, the USPTO granted the Petition in part. The Company then filed updated rebuttal comments on January 27, 2011 in compliance with the granted Petition. The USPTO has considered these updated rebuttal comments, and in a communication dated June 15, 2011, continued to reject all the previously rejected claims. The USPTO also rejected all the claims newly added in the October 8, 2010 Netlist response. In a further communication dated June 21, 2011, the USPTO issued an Action Closing Prosecution indicating that it would confirm the patentability of four claims and reject all the other pending claims. On August 22, 2011, Netlist responded to the Action Closing Prosecution by further amending some claims and making arguments as to the validity of the rejected claims in view of the cited references. The Company submitted rebuttal comments on September 21, 2011. In a further communication dated February 7, 2012, the USPTO issued a Right of Appeal Notice, which also indicated that the previous amendments to claim made by Netlist would be entered, and that the current pending claims, as amended, were patentable. The Company filed a Notice of Appeal at the USPTO on March 8, 2012, within the time period provided for filing the Notice of Appeal and Netlist did not file Notice of Cross-Appeal. The Company filed its Appeal Brief on May 8, 2012, and Netlist filed its Responsive Brief on July 2, 2012. The parties received an Examiner’s Answer dated April 16, 2013 from the USPTO that maintained the rejections set forth on the Right of Appeal Notice dated February 7, 2012. The Company filed a Rebuttal Brief on May 16, 2013 and a Request for Oral Hearing on June 7, 2013. The appeal hearing took place in front of the PTAB on November 20, 2013. The PTAB issued its decision on January 16, 2014, affirming the Examiner’s decision as to all of the challenged claims. On February 18, 2014, the Company made a request for rehearing of the decision, and in papers dated March 18, 2014, Netlist provided rebuttal comments to the request for rehearing. A communication from the PTAB is expected as the next substantive step of the proceeding, as prosecution otherwise remains closed. The proceeding is expected to continue in accordance with established Inter Partes Reexamination procedures. |
On September 8, 2010, the USPTO ordered the request for Inter Partes Reexamination for U.S. Patent No. 7,619,912 and found a substantial new question of patentability based upon different issues that the Company raised as the reexamination requestor. The USPTO accompanied this Reexamination Order of U.S. Patent No. 7,619,912 with its own evaluation of the validity of this patent, and initially determined that all of the claims were patentable based upon the Company’s request for Inter Partes Reexamination. Netlist did not comment upon this Reexamination Order. The USPTO on February 28, 2011 also merged the Proceedings of the Company’s Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,619,912, bearing Control No. 90/001,339 with Inter Partes Reexamination Proceeding 95/000,578 filed October 20, 2010 on behalf of SMART Modular Technologies, Inc. and Inter Partes Reexamination Proceeding 95/000,579 filed October 21, 2010 on behalf of Google, Inc. In each of these other Reexamination Proceedings, the USPTO had indicated that there existed a substantial new question of patentability with respect to certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,619,912, but had not accompanied the Reexamination Orders related thereto with its own evaluation of the validity of this patent, indicating that such evaluation would be forthcoming at a later time. This further evaluation was received in an Office Action dated April 4, 2011, in which the Examiner rejected a substantial majority of the claims based upon a number of different rejections, including certain of the rejections originally proposed by the Company in its Request for Reexamination. This Office Action also indicated that one claim was deemed to be patentable over the prior art of record in the merged Reexamination Proceedings. After seeking and obtaining an extension of time to respond to the Office Action dated April 4, 2011, Netlist served its response on July 5, 2011, which added new claims and made arguments as to why the originally filed claims were not invalid in view of the cited references. Each of the merged Reexamination Requestors, including the Company, submitted rebuttal comments by August 29, 2011. The USPTO considered this Netlist response and each of the rebuttal comments, and in an Office Action dated October 14, 2011, continued to reject most, but not all of the previously rejected claims, as well as rejected claims that had been added by Netlist in its July 5, 2011 response. After seeking and obtaining an extension of time to respond to the Office Action dated October 14, 2011, Netlist served its response on January 13, 2012, which response made amendments based upon subject matter that had been indicated as allowable in the Office Action dated October 14, 2011, added other new claims and made arguments as to why all of these claims should be allowed. The three different merged Reexamination Requestors, including the Company, timely submitted rebuttal comments on or about February 13, 2012. The USPTO issued a Non-final Office Action on November 13, 2012, rejecting some claims and indicating that others contained allowable subject matter. On January 14, 2013, Netlist filed a Response to the Non-final Office Action which presented further claim amendments and evidence supporting its positions regarding patentability. Rebuttal comments from the Company and the other Requestors were filed on February 13, 2013. On March 21, 2014, the USPTO issued an Action Closing Prosecution in which the USPTO indicated that certain of the pending claims were allowable and other of the pending claims were rejected. A communication from Netlist is permitted as the next substantive step of the proceeding, as prosecution otherwise remains closed. The merged proceeding is expected to continue in accordance with established Inter Partes Reexamination procedures. |
|
The reexamination proceedings could result in a determination that the patents-in-suit, in whole or in part, are valid or invalid, as well as modifications of the scope of the patents-in-suit. |
Based on these papers the Court in January 2014 ordered a continued stay of the proceedings, took the litigation off the active court calendar, and requested that the parties file a joint status report on May 1, 2014 and every 120 days thereafter advising the Court as to status of the reexamination proceedings at which times, the Court could decide to maintain or lift the stay. |
While the Company intends to defend the foregoing lawsuit vigorously, litigation, whether or not determined in the Company’s favor or settled, could be costly and time-consuming and could divert management’s attention and resources, which could adversely affect the Company’s business. |
Based on the nature of the litigation, the Company is currently unable to predict the final outcome of this lawsuit and therefore, cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss. However, because of the nature and inherent uncertainties of litigation, should the outcome of these actions be unfavorable, the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows could be materially and adversely affected. |
Indemnifications |
In the ordinary course of business, the Company may provide indemnifications of varying scope and terms to customers, vendors, lessors, investors, directors, officers, employees and other parties with respect to certain matters, including, but not limited to, losses arising out of the Company’s breach of such agreements, services to be provided by the Company, or from intellectual property infringement claims made by third-parties. These indemnifications may survive termination of the underlying agreement and the maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification provisions may not be subject to maximum loss clauses. The Company has not incurred material costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnifications. Accordingly, the Company has no liabilities recorded for these agreements as of March 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013. |