Commitments and Contingencies
|3 Months Ended|
Mar. 31, 2019
|Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]|
|Commitments and Contingencies||
Commitments and Contingencies
Inventory Purchase and Other Contractual Obligations
As of March 31, 2019, future minimum payments under inventory purchase and other obligations are as follows:
Other obligations consist of contractual payments due for software licenses.
As disclosed in the Annual Report, the Company was a defendant in patent litigation originally filed by CrestaTech Technology Corporation, or CrestaTech. On January 21, 2014, CrestaTech filed a complaint for patent infringement against the Company in the United States District Court of Delaware, or District Court Litigation, alleging that the Company infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 7,075,585, or the '585 Patent and 7,265,792, or the '792 Patent. In addition to asking for compensatory damages, CrestaTech alleged willful infringement and sought a permanent injunction. CrestaTech also named Sharp Corporation, Sharp Electronics Corp. and VIZIO, Inc. as defendants based upon their alleged use of the Company's television tuners. Following the litigation history described in the Company's prior filings on Form 10-K and Form 10-Q, the District Court dismissed the District Court Litigation in April 2018. While the successor plaintiff following a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding of CrestaTech below has suggested that the dismissal may have been in error, it has taken no action to re-instate the case. In the related bankruptcy proceeding, the plaintiff stated that it “no longer has any valid patent claims that it is asserting in any of the proceedings purchased through the Sale Agreement,” which includes the District Court Litigation against the Company. In re Cresta Technology Corporation, Case No. 16-50808 (N.D. Cal. Bank. 2016) at Dkt. No. 270. At this time, the Company cannot predict whether the District Court litigation will be re-instated. In addition, outside the District Court Litigation, the Company and the successor to CrestaTech are continuing to dispute certain matters relating to the ‘585 Patent through the inter parties review (IPR) and potential appeal process. Any re-instatement of the District Court Litigation, material expenses associated with the IPR and potential appeal process, or other costs arising from the dispute between the parties could adversely affect the Company's operating results.
Trango Systems, Inc. Litigation
On or about August 2, 2016, Trango Systems, Inc., or Trango, filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, Central Division, against defendants Broadcom Corporation, Inc., or Broadcom, and the Company, collectively, Defendants. Trango is a purchaser that alleges various fraud, breach of contract, and interference with economic relations claims in connection with the discontinuance of a chip line the Company acquired from Broadcom in 2016. Trango seeks unspecified general and special damages, pre-judgment interest, expenses and costs, attorneys’ fees, punitive damages, and unspecified injunctive and equitable relief. On June 23, 2017, the Court sustained the Company's demurrer to each cause of action in the second amended complaint filed on or about December 6, 2016. Trango filed its third amended complaint on or about July 13, 2017. On February 23, 2018, the Court sustained, in part, the Company's demurrer, dismissing with prejudice the cause of action for breach of a written contract, and Trango voluntarily dismissed its cause of action for breach of an implied-in-fact contract. The remaining causes of action have been permitted to proceed. On March 15, 2018, Trango filed its fourth amended complaint. The Company filed its answer on April 17, 2018. Also, on April 17, 2018, Broadcom filed a cross-complaint against the Company, alleging causes of action for indemnity, contribution and apportionment, and declaratory relief. Broadcom voluntarily dismissed the cross-complaint on June 8, 2018. On December 10, 2018, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative summary adjudication concerning all of Trango’s causes of action asserted against the Company; on April 5, 2019, the Court granted that motion, in part, dismissing Trango’s fraud-based claims against the Company (specifically, claims for intentional fraud, promissory fraud/false promise, fraud by concealment, and negligent misrepresentation). The trial date has been continued and is now set for August 9, 2019. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against the lawsuit as it proceeds.
The Company cannot predict the outcome of the Trango Systems, Inc. litigation. Any adverse determination in the Trango Systems, Inc. litigation could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business and operating results.
In addition, from time to time, the Company is subject to threats of litigation or actual litigation in the ordinary course of business, some of which may be material. Other than the CrestaTech and Trango litigation described above, the Company believes that there are no other currently pending litigation matters that, if determined adversely to the Company's interests, would have a material effect on the Company's business or that would not be covered by the Company's existing liability insurance.
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef