Commitments and Contingencies | Note 7—Commitments and Contingencies Contingent Legal Expenses TRGP Agreement Netlist and TRGP are parties to both an initial and an amended investment agreement (the “TRGP Agreement”), which generally provided that TRGP directly fund the costs incurred by or on our behalf in connection with our first action in the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) and the U.S. district court proceedings, but excluding all other proceedings (all such funded costs, collectively, the “Funded Costs”). In exchange for such funding, we agreed that, if we recovered any proceeds in connection with the funded SK hynix proceedings relating to certain patents, it would pay to TRGP the amount of the Funded Costs paid by TRGP plus an escalating premium based on when any such proceeds are recovered. On January 23, 2020, Netlist and TRGP entered into an amendment to the TRGP Agreement to alter the recovery sharing formula related to claims against SK hynix for alleged infringement of our patents (the “First Amendment”). We believe that the SK hynix License Agreement entered into on April 5, 2021 falls outside the scope of the TRGP Agreement and the First Amendment to the TRGP Agreement and does not anticipate that we will be obligated to make payments to TRGP under the TRGP Agreement or the First Amendment. Litigation and Patent Reexaminations We own numerous patents and continue to seek to grow and strengthen our patent portfolio, which covers various aspects of our innovations and includes various claim scopes. We plan to pursue avenues to monetize our intellectual property portfolio, in which we would generate revenue by selling or licensing our technology, and we intend to vigorously enforce our patent rights against alleged infringers of such rights. We dedicate substantial resources to protecting and enforcing our intellectual property rights, including with patent infringement proceedings we file against third parties and defense of our patents against challenges made by way of reexamination and review proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). We expect these activities to continue for the foreseeable future, with no guarantee that any ongoing or future patent protection or litigation activities will be successful, or that we will be able to monetize our intellectual property portfolio. We are also subject to litigation based on claims that we have infringed on the intellectual property rights of others. Any litigation, regardless of its outcome, is inherently uncertain, involves a significant dedication of resources, including time and capital, and diverts management’s attention from our other activities. As a result, any current or future infringement claims or patent challenges by or against third parties, whether eventually decided in our favor or settled, could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Additionally, the outcome of pending or future litigation and related patent reviews and reexaminations, as well as any delay in their resolution, could affect our ability to continue to sell our products, protect against competition in the current and expected markets for our products or license or otherwise monetize our intellectual property rights in the future. Google Litigation On December 4, 2009, Netlist filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Google, Inc. (“Google”) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the “NDCA”), seeking damages and injunctive relief based on Google’s alleged infringement of our U.S. Patent No. 7,619,912 (the “‘912 patent”). The NDCA case was stayed, pending challenges to the ‘912 patent before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Eventually, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit confirmed the ‘912 patent’s validity on June 15, 2020, and the NDCA case stay was lifted which relates generally to technologies to implement rank multiplication. As of the reporting date, the NDCA case was re-assigned to Chief Judge Seeborg of NDCA, and a set of parties’ cross-motions is set for hearing on March 3, 2022. Inphi Litigation On September 22, 2009, Netlist filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Inphi Corporation (“Inphi”) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the “Central District Court”). The complaint, as amended, alleges that Inphi is contributorily infringing and actively inducing the infringement of U.S. patends owned by us, including the ‘912 patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,532,537 (the “‘537 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,636,274 (the “‘274 patent”), which was stayed pending the outcome of Inter Partes Micron Litigation On April 28, 2021, Netlist filed a complaint for patent infringement against Micron Technology, Inc. (“Micron”) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division (Case No. 6:21-cv-00431 & Case No. 6:21-cv-00430) These proceedings are based on the alleged infringement by Micron’s load reduced dual in line memory modules (“LRDIMM”) and Micron’s non-volatile dual in line memory modules (“NVDIMM”) enterprise memory modules under four U.S. patents – US Pat. No. 10,489,314; US Pat. No. 9,824,035; US Pat. No. 10,268,608; & US Pat. No. 8,301,833. As of the reporting date, Micron filed its opening claim construction brief and the parties stipulated to transfer the matter to the Austin division. The case has been assigned to Hon. Judge Lee Yeakel, with the parties agreeing on a schedule for remaining claim construction briefing, and the matter is set for a case management conference March 3, 2022. In parallel, Micron filed requests to bring Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) proceedings against three of the four asserted patents: U.S. Patents 8,301,833, 9,854,035, and 10,268,608. As of the reporting date, the PTAB has not made a decision to institute any of these IPR requests. Samsung Litigations On May 28, 2020, Netlist filed a complaint against Samsung in the United States District Court for the Central District of California for Samsung’s breach of the parties’ JDLA. On July 22, 2020, Netlist amended its complaint to seek a Declaratory Judgment that it properly terminated the JDLA in light of Samsung’s material breaches. On October 14, 2021, the Court entered summary judgment in Netlist’s favor and confirmed Netlist properly terminated the JDLA as of July 15, 2020. On February 15, 2022, the Court entered a Final Judgment in favor of Netlist on each of its three claims, and confirmed conclusively that all licenses granted under the JDLA were terminated. On February 25, 2022, Samsung filed a Notice of Appeal, and the Federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a Time Schedule Order on February 28, 2022 setting Samsung’s deadline to file an opening appeal brief as June 6, 2022. On October 15, 2021, Samsung filed a declaratory judgement action against Netlist in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (“DDE”), requesting in relevant part that the Delaware District Court declare that Samsung does not infringe Netlist’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,619,912, 9,858,218, 10,217,523, 10,474,595, 10,860,506, 10,949,339, and 11,016,918. As of the reporting date, Samsung seeks leave to add U.S. Pat. 11,232,054 (issued Jan. 25, 2022) to the list. Netlist believes Samsung’s claims levied in the DDE action meritless, and the relief Samsung requests unjustified. As of the reporting date, Netlist filed a motion seeking dismissal of Samsung’s DDE complaint, and an opposition contesting the inclusion of U.S. Pat. 11,232,054 as part of a second amended complaint filing. On November 19, 2021, Samsung filed IPR proceedings contesting the invalidity of U.S. Patents 9,858,218, 10,474,595, and 10,217,523. Netlist filed its initial responses to Samsung’s petitions on February 18, 2022 contesting the institution of any IPR on the grounds propounded. As of the reporting date, the PTAB has not yet made decision to institute any of these IPR requests. On February 17, 2022, Samsung filed a separate IPR request contesting the invalidity of only claim 16 within Netlist’s U.S. Patent 7,619,912. As of the reporting date, the PTAB has not yet issued a filing date for their latest challenge. On December 20, 2021, Netlist filed for a complaint for patent infringement against Samsung in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:21-cv-463) under US Pat. No. 10,860,506; US Pat. No. 10,949,339; & US Pat. No. 11,016,918. As of the reporting date, no schedule has been set for this action. Other Contingent Obligations In the ordinary course of our business, we have made certain indemnities, commitments and guarantees pursuant to which we may be required to make payments in relation to certain transactions. These include, among others: (i) intellectual property indemnities to our customers and licensees in connection with the use, sale and/or license of our products; (ii) indemnities to vendors and service providers pertaining to claims based on our negligence or willful misconduct; (iii) indemnities involving the accuracy of representations and warranties in certain contracts; (iv) indemnities to our directors and officers to the maximum extent permitted under the laws of the State of Delaware; (v) indemnities to SVB pertaining to all obligations, demands, claims, and liabilities claimed or asserted by any other party in connection with transactions contemplated by the applicable investment or loan documents, as applicable; and (vi) indemnities or other claims related to certain real estate leases, under which we may be required to indemnify property owners for environmental and other liabilities or may face other claims arising from our use of the applicable premises. The duration of these indemnities, commitments and guarantees varies and, in certain cases, may be indefinite. The majority of these indemnities, commitments and guarantees do not provide for any limitation of the maximum potential for future payments we could be obligated to make. Historically, we have not been obligated to make significant payments as a result of these obligations, and no liabilities have been recorded for these indemnities, commitments and guarantees in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. |