INPHI CORPORATION
NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Dollars in thousands except share and per share amounts)
17. Commitments and Contingencies
Noncancelable Purchase Obligations
The Company has noncancelable service agreements, including software licenses, colocation and cloud services used in research and development activities expiring in various years through 2025. As of March 31, 2021, future minimum payments under the noncancelable agreements are as follows:
| | | | |
2021 (remaining) | | $ | 834 | |
2022 | | | 312 | |
2023 | | | 47 | |
2024 | | | 46 | |
2025 | | | 37 | |
| | | | |
Total | | $ | 1,276 | |
| | | | |
The Company depends upon third-party subcontractors to manufacture its wafers. The Company’s 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, 2021, the total value of open purchase orders for wafers was approximately $51,452.
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 (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 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, the 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. As a result of the proceedings at the USPTO, the Court has stayed the litigation, with the parties advising the Court on status every 120 days.
As to the proceeding at the USPTO, reexamination has been ordered and concluded for all of the patents that Netlist alleged to infringe. The Reexamination Certificate for U.S. Patent No. 7,532,537 was issued on August 2, 2016 based on amended claims being determined patentable. The Reexamination Certificate for U.S. Patent No. 7,636,274 was issued on November 5, 2018, indicating that all claims, 1 through 97, were cancelled. The Reexamination Certificate for U.S. Patent No. 7,619,912 was issued on February 8, 2021, with certain claims being cancelled, other amended claims being determined patentable, and further claims dependent on the amended claim being determined patentable
While the Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously to the extent that Netlist has valid claims remaining in view of the USPTO proceedings, the 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.
Due to 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.
Claims Against eSilicon Corporation
In connection with the Company’s acquisition of eSilicon, eSilicon and the Company have received written communications from certain former stockholders of eSilicon demanding to inspect eSilicon’s books and records and indicating that such stockholders will be seeking appraisal of shares they held in eSilicon. Certain of these former eSilicon stockholders also have stated that they may assert claims against eSilicon’s directors and senior officers for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations in connection with the merger between eSilicon and a subsidiary of the Company.
21